The trial Court held that Thammiah had numberproprietary interest in the lands in Schedule B and on that view decreed the plaintiffs claim for partition of the houses and sites described in Schedule IC only and awarded a third share to him, another third share to Ramanna and the remaining third share companylectively to defendants 31 and 32sons of Venkataraju.
With certificate under Art.
All these muchilikas and pattas related to the same seventeen pieces of land which were originally in the possession of Thammiah, and the companyenants thereof are identical.
He valued the claim for mesne profits at Rs.
3,800 past profits on plaintiffs 1/3rd share for two years 1940 and 1941 at Rs.
The plaintiff claimed that Thammiah owned occupancy rights in the ryoti lands in the Pithapuram Zamindari and that after Thammiabs death the lands were managed with the permission of the plaintiff and his brother Venkataraju, in the first instance, by the two daughters in law of Thammiah Chetamma and Rammanna, son of Seshamma and their possession and management was on behalf of heirs and persons entitled to maintenance out of the estate and that the right to sue for partition accrued on the death of Bhavamma on March 18, 1935.
It was also pleaded that Thammiah had made an oral will devising his estate in favour of Veeriah who was his illatom son in law and Rudrayya in equal shares.
in appeal, the High Court of Madras modified the decree of the trial companyrt holding that in the agricultural lands Thammiah had occupancy rights which on his death devolved on his surviving daughters, and directed that those lands be also partitioned, and that a third share be awarded to the plaintiff and a third share to defendants 31 and 32 together with mesne profits from March 18,1935.
The suit was resisted by the descendants of Seshamma and Annamma principally on the plea that in the lands described in Schedule BThammiah had number proprietary right and that occupancy right therein accrued to Rudrayya and Veeriah husband of Seshamma by virtue of the Madras Estates Lands Act, 1908.
133, this appeal is preferred by the descendants of Seshamma and Ammanna.
424 of 1958.
the date of Bhavammas death.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 25, 1950, of the Madras High Court in A. S. No.
This plea about the oral will was negatived by the Court of First Instance and, the High Court and need numberlonger be companysi dered, because it is number canvassed be fore us in this appeal.
By his plaint the plaintiff claimed mesne profits in respect of his share for three years prior to the date of the suit.
Gangaraju left him surviving his widow Cbetamma and Ramayya his widow Venkamma Ammanna was survived by her son Rudrayya, who was brought up by Thammiah.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
for the appellants.
To this suit Jaggarayudu and Paddaraju, sons of Venkataraju brother of the plaintiff were impleaded as defendants 31 and 32.
12 in village Pandalpaka in Pitbapur Zamindari and in Schedule IC described as three houses with sites thereof in village Pandalpaka,.
Thammiah died in 1885, Seshamma in 1904, Gangamma in 1930 and Bhavamma in 1935.
2,280 and past mesne profits on plaintiffs 1/3rd shares for the year 1942 at Rs.1,520.
V. R. Tatachari, for respondents Nos.
1 to 3.
53 of 1944 in the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge at Rajamundhry against the descendants of Seshamma and Ammanna for a decree for partition and separate possession of a third share in 17 lands, described in Schedule B to the plaint as agricultural land and measuring in the aggregate 51 acres 72 cents in Patta No.
After the death of Bhavamma, Paddaraju herein after called the plaintiff , son of Gangamma filed Suit No.
R. Krishna Pillai for respondent No.
September 18.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH J. One Thammiah had two sons Gangaraju and Ramayya and four daughters Ammanna, Sesbamma, Gangamma and Bbavamma, of these, the two sons and the daughter Ammanna .died during Thammiabs life time.
67 of 1947.
Ram Reddy, for respondent No.
Bhimasankaram andK.R. Chaudhuri.
