She is the widow of one Mruthinjaya Rao. She sued for partition and separate possession of her half share in certain immovable properties described in Schedule A to the plaint. Rajahmundry is the appellant. Defendant is the brother of her deceased husband and other Defendants are the undivided sons of defendant. Defendants were made parties because they were in possession of portions of properties having obtained them in exchange for properties belonging to them. The properties in Schedule A originally belonged to one Reddi Rama Brahmam and on his death devolved successively on his widow Subbamma and daughter Lakahminarasamma and thereafter on the two sons of the daughter, the deceased husband of the plaintiff and defendant and that the two brothers became entitled to and enjoyed the properties as tenants in common and on the death of her husband his moiety devolved upon her. The contesting defendant was defendant whose written statement was adopted by his undivided sons, other defendants. He denied that items 7, 10 and 11 of Schedule A belonged to Rama Brahmam. The other items were admitted to have been inherited by the two brothers but it was pleaded that the two brothers inherited them not as tenants in common but as joint tenants with eights of survivorship inter se. Defendant further stated that these properties were enjoyed jointly along with their joint family properties without any distinction and that, therefore, on the death of the plaintiff's husband, defendant became entitled to the entire interest in the properties. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff's rights, even if there be any, were barred by adverse possession of defendant. It is also common ground that the two brothers were members of an undivided Hindu family.
The properties which belonged to Ramabrahmam were inherited by the plaintiff's husband and his brother as tenants-in-common or as joint tenants with right of survivorship. According to Hindu law, this question must ultimately be decided by determining the nature and character of the property taken by them in their hands. It is common ground that they took them as the heirs of their maternal grandfather.
The Session Court held that A did not form part of Ramabrahmam's estate and that even in respect of items which formed part of that estate, there was nothing decisive either way, and it was consistent either with tenancy-in-common or joint tenancy. The suit dismissed.
The Madras High Court Held are partible between the plaintiff and defendant should be divided by metes and bounds but in making such division, the properties in the possession of defendant under Ex. D-1 should be allotted to the share of defendant. But 5 acres of property which belonged both to the plaintiff and defendant had been given in exchange by defendant for property which he had made a gift of under EX. D-1 (a). The plaintiff exchange was held to valid, the lands so exchanged might be allotted to the share of defendant in the division to be effected. The plaintiff will be entitled to this relief.