Before his death, he had adopted the petitioner before the High Court one Chimmapudi Subrahmanyam, the respondent before this Court.
This claim was preferred under S. 32 1 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.
The suit of the adopted son was decreed, by the trial, companyrt on March 24, 1951 both with regard to the declaration of the right of adoption and succession as also possession over the lands mentioned in the schedule to the plaint.
The adopted son put the decree in execution and got delivery of posses sion through the companyrt in August 1954.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 10, 1962 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in R.P. No.
This led to the revision applications before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
During the pendency of the suit, the widow Kaveramma was prohibited by an order of injunction from dealing with the lands in any way.
This was sometime in the year 1944.
Kaveramma preferred an appeal from the decree passed against her and this was dismissed by the High Court in 1954.
Subrahmanyam filed a suit in the companyrt of the District Munsif, Khammam for a declaration that he was the adopted son of Ramalingayya.
The Tahsildar made an order in favour of the appellants in July 1958 which was upheld in appeal to the Collector in March, 1959.
The land revenue authorities registered the widow Kaveramma as pattedar and dispossed the adopted son of all the lands putting Kaveramma in possession thereof.
He came into possession of the properties of his adoptive father after the latters death.
Notwithstanding that, about a year afterwards, they filed a petition on October 7, 1955 for possession of the lands alleging that they had been in possession for the last six years in the 71 4 capacity of tenants.
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petitions and this has led to the appeal.
The adopted son amended his plaint by including a prayer for possession.
The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows.
Pending the disposal of the suit, however, Ramalingayyas widow, who was the 4th respondent in C.R.P. No.36 of 1952 before the High Court claimed, to have her name registered in the register maintained under the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act of 1317 F. by virtue of the provisions of s. 59 of that Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Their allegation further was that the adopted son and his mother had dispossessed them from the suit lands and they therefore prayed for being put back into possession.
One Ramalingayya died in the year 1941 possessed of companysiderable properties including the lands which formed the subject matter of the above mentioned civil revision petitions.
7 1 3 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Miter, J. This is an appeal by special leave, from a judgment in a batch of civil revision petitions decided by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in September, 1962.
V. Rangam, for the appellants.
Ram Reddy, Triyambak Rao Deshmukh and R. Vasudev Pillai, for the respondent.
611 of 1964.
Ramalingayyas widow however raised a dispute about the factum and validity of the adoption and claimed the properties as the heir of her husband.
This is borne out by the judgment of, the District Collector, Khammam dated March 19, 1959 and the petition for special leave to this Court dated October 18, 1962.
1128 of 1959.
Thereafter, some time in the year 1952 the exact date does number appear from the records before us Kaveramma leased the lands which were tile subject matter of the civil revision petitions to the appellants before this companyrt.
