Satyanarayana Rao, J.-The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. His suit for a declaration of title and possession of plaint B schedule properties was dismissed by the lower Court.

The property in suit originally belonged to one Govindu who died on 5th October, 1897, leaving behind him his widow Veeramma and two daughters Peda Kanakamma and China Kanakamma. Veeramma died on the 19th April, 1909 and according to the plaintiff’s case, the inheritance was divided between the two daughters in 1910. Peda Kanakamma was married to Bollayya, the father of the defendant. She died in 1913. China Kanakamma who is still alive surrendered the estate under a deed of surrender of 14th August, 1946-Exhibit A-1-to her son, the plaintiff. The plaintiff sues in this suit to recover possession of half of the inheritance of his maternal grandfather which came into possession of Peda Kanakamma by virtue of the partition of 1910 after the death of Veeramma and which continued in the possession of Bollayya, the husband of Peda Kanakamma and after his death with the defendant. The plaintiff’s case regarding the possession of Bollayya was, as stated in paragraph 4 of the plaint is that though after the death of Peda Kanakamma, China Kanakamma became entitled to the entirety of the estate as the sole heir, her paternal aunt Lakshmamma whose son was Bollayya and the grand-children of that paternal aunt continued to live with her and that she had later on allowed those people to be in possession of plaint B schedule property at the desire of paternal aunt. The case of the defendant as put forward in the written statement was that this Bollayya was brought into the family as an illatom son-in-law by Govindu and that he was subsequently married to Peda Kanakamma under an arrangement that he should be entitled to half the properties of Govindu, that the properties were actually partitioned after the marriage of China Kanakamma and that a half share in those properties which is now represented by the B Schedule attached to the plaint were given to him and that he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death and thereafter the defendant, his son, came to be in possession. It must be mentioned that this defendant is not the son of Bollayya by Peda Kanakamma but by his second wife Hanumayamma. The defendant in his written statement also attacked the surrender deed as being sham and that it was never intended to be acted upon. There was also a point raised in the issues that the property in dispute did not belong to Govindu and that he did not die possessed of the same but that issue was subsequently abandoned.

The most important point that had to be decided by the lower Court was the truth of the illatom put forward by the defendant. On this question the finding of the trial Court was adverse to the defendant and the defendant has filed cross-objections canvassing the correctness of that finding. The learned Subordinate Judge upheld the surrender as being valid and he also found that there was alienation by Peda Kanakamma. He would have in the ordinary course decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff but for the fact that he found that Bolayya was in possession of the property ever since 1913 and that the patta was also transferred in his name and according to the Judge this possession was adverse, as in his opinion the evidence relied on by the plaintiff to prove the permissive character of the possession was not clear. He therefore dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, though he found on most of the issues in his favour, on the ground that as China Kanakamma could not have displaced the title of Bollayya by reason of his adverse possession for more than twelve years, notwithstanding the surrender by China Kanakamma in his favour the plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession of the property during the life time of China Kanakamma.

The plaintiff preferred this appeal against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge and as stated abov

Click Here to Read the rest of this document