The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove adoption, division, and Will in the context of a suit for partition.

Ramesam, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are the appellants.

2. The relation between the parties is shown in the following pedigree: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------

| | | |

Lakshmayya. Ramanna Subbanna Adenna

(alleged to (plaintiff) (1 st defendant)

have adopted |

|

5th defendant), Veerayya

|

M. Subbamma (5th defendant).

|

(6th defendant)

|

|

|

Naganna

|

Predeceased son

|

M. Hanumayamma

|

(7th defendants).

|

-------------------

------

|

-----------------------------------------

-----

| |

|

2nd defendant. Narasayya 4

th defendant

(3rd defendant).

3. The parties belong to the Kamma sect of the Sudra caste. They belong to a village, Enamadala, in the Narasaraopet taluk of the Guntur District. The family is admittedly a rich family. There were originally four brothers. The eldest of them, Lakshmayya, was said to have divided himself from the family long ago. (D.W.--30 years according to Ex. XLVI). It is admitted in the plaint that the other three brothers remained undivided till 1908. The eldest of them, Ramanna, had a son, Naganna, who died in about April 1908 leaving his widow, the 7th defendant. Up to this event, the members of the family were living in the most friendly terms, according to both sides. It is said for the plaintiff that misunderstandings arose on the death of Naganna followed by that of his infant daughter. This is denied bys the defendants who say that, up to Ramannas death, the brothers continued to be on the most amicable terms. Ramanna died on 27th October 1908.

4. On the 13th November 1908, the village officers sent Ex. II, a pouthi report, in which they reported that the deceased Ramanna adopted the son of his brother Subbanna and willed away the whole of his property to him. It also mentions that the, deceased and his brothers were divided. Though the date of the Will is mentioned as 25th October 1908, neither the date of the adoption nor the date of division was mentioned. It may be observed that, if a pattadar dies, the village officers have to report the name of the heir of the pattadar so that his name may be entered in the revenue accounts. If the deceased left an adopted son, the son stands in the place of his father, whether the family is divided or undivided; there is no purpose in mentioning the division and as all the property is ancestral property, also the Will is redundant to confer title to the son and is void for any other purpose. Exhibit II was received at the Tahsildars office on the 26th November, and on the 30th the Tahsildar passed an order that the adopted sons name should be included. There is nothing to show that notice was given to the 1st defendant before the report was sent or the order was passed. At the same time it is conceded for the 1st defendant that the adoption of Veerayya (5th defendant) was openly set up on the last day of the funeral ceremonies of the deceased (called pedda dinam or big day)(vide Ex. XXXV, deposition of 1st defendant), The 1st defendant sent a petition "10 or 15 days afterwards" (see Ex. XXXV). This petition was destroyed in the Kotappakonda riots but it must have been sent prior to 6th January 1909 (Ex. LXII, para. 8). On 2nd April 1909, the 1st defendant sent two petitions, one for himself and the other on behalf of his son Narasayya (now the 3rd defendant)(Ex. IV).

5. In these petitions, the 1st defendant set up that the deceased Ramanna adopted Narasayya, as a counter blast to the adoption of Veerayya reported by the village officers. The Divisional Officer to whom Ex. IV was sent, called for a report form the Tahsildar and passed the proceedings Ex. IV (a), recognizing the adoption of Veerayya. Before Ramannas death all the four brothers filed a suit as reversioners for declaration in respect of some property of their gnatis and got a decree. While the matter was pending in appeal, Ramanna died and the appellant in the case applied for bringing, on record, Veerayya as the lega