AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
477 paragraphs · 10,692 wordsDavies, J.—These appeals, and the suit out of which they arise, relate to the right to the permanently settled estates of Nidadavole and
Medur in the Kistna and Godavari Districts.
The following genealogical tree shows the relationship of the several members of the family.
Narayya Appa Row (1)
|
Vankata Narasimha Ramachandra Narasimha
Appa Row (2) Appa Row (3) Appa Row (4)
| | |
Narayya Appa Sobhanadri |
Row (5) Appa Row (6) |
| | | |
| Simhadri Narayya Venkatari
| Appa Row (7) Appa Row (8) Appa Row (9)
| |
| Parthasartadhi
| Appa Row (16)
|
| | | | | |
Narayan Ranhgyya Venkata Narasimha Vinkatadri Simhadri Venkatramayya
Appa Row Appa Row Appa Row (12) Appa Row (13) Appa Row (14) Appa Row (15)
(10) (11) (dead) (dead) (dead)
(dead)
|
Narayya Appa
Row (17)
given away in
adoption.
The three brothers, Venkatanarasimha (2), Ramachendra (3), and Narasimha (4) were divided. The last admitted male owner of Nidadavole
estate was Narayya Appa Row (5) who died in 1864, leaving behind him as his only heirs two widows, Papamma Row and Chinnamma Row.
These widows put forward a will by their deceased husband, executed on the day before his death, which provided for the equal division of his
estate between them, and authorized them to adopt a son to him. They continued in joint possession and enjoyment of the estate until the death of
Chinnamma Row in 1881 or 1883, after which Papamma Row alone enjoyed the estate. In 1888 Venkataramayya (15), who was the sole owner
of the Medur estate, died and the Court of Wards then took possession of the estate on be-'' half of Yenkataramayya''s only son, Narayya (17)
who was then a child. In 1890 Papamma Row adopted this Narayya who was then sole owner of the Medur estate. The minor, Narayya, died
unmarried in August 1895, his sole heir being his adoptive mother Papamma Row. It was immediately after this that the first of the suits now before
us, viz., O.S. No. 35 of 1895, was filed before the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam by Venkayamma, the natural mother of the minor Narayya
against Papamma Row and the Court of Wards. In this suit she sought to recover possession of the Medur estate on the ground that the adoption
of Narayya by Papamma Row was invalid for various reasons, and that, even if it was not invalid, Narayya, by being adopted, was divested of all
interest in the Medur estate. While this suit was pending Venkayamma died, but the suit was continued by Rangayya (11) and Venkatanarasimha
(12) as the reversionary heirs of her late husband, Venkataramayya (15), who was also their own divided brother. In that suit the Subordinate
Judge held that the will of Narayya (5 under the authority of which Papamma Row made the adoption, was genuine, and that the adoption of the
minor Narayya (17) was not invalid for any reason, and also that it did not operate to divest Narayya (17) of the estate of Medur, which therefore
passed on his death to Papamma Row, as his adoptive mother. He (the Subordinate Judge) therefore dismissed the suit on the 2nd December
1899. It is against this decree that Venkatanarasimha (12) and Rangayya (11) have respectively filed the present Appeals Nos. 122 & 123 of
1900. Three days after that decree was passed, i.e., on the 5th December 1899, Papamma Row died, and on the 14th of the same month the
second of the suits now before us, viz., O.S. No. 44 of 1899, was launched before the District Judge by Parthasarathi, (16). It will be seen by a
reference to the genealogical tree that this Parthasarathi (16) and Rangayya (11) and Venkatanarasimha (12) are all equally nearly related to
Narayya (5), the late husband of Papamma Row, and they were, in fact, his only*reversionary heirs when Papamma Row died. They were also
the only reversionary heirs of the minor Narayya (17) considered as the adopted son of Narayya (5) and of Papamma Row, and they were all
equally nearly related to him. Parthasarathi in his suit (O.S. No. 44) therefore claimed, as a reversioner, to be entitled to a one-third share in the
estates of Nidadavole and Medur, Rangayya and Venkatanarasimha being also each entitled to a one-third share, and he sued to recover his share
from them as they had taken possession of the estates on Papamma Row''s death. It will further be seen by reference to the genealogical tree that
the nearest reversioners of the minor Narayya (17), considered as a member of his natural family, were his father''s brothers, Rangayya (11) and
Venkatanarasimha (12) and that Parthasarathi (16) was only a distant reversioner. If, therefore, the adoption of the minor Narayya (17) by
Papamma Row was invalid, or if, that adoption operated in law to divest the minor of the Medur estate, both of which contentions, however,
Parthasarathi (16) denied, then Parthasarathi could have no right as a reversioner to a share in that estate. He, therefore, prayed that if either of
those contentions were established, he might be decreed his one-third share in Nidadavole alone.
The main contentions of the defendants Rangayya (11) and Venkatanarasimha (12) were that the will of Narayya (5) was a forgery, and that for
this and other reasons the adoption of Narayya (17) by Papamma Row was invalid, and that, even if valid, it operated to divest Narayya (17) of
the Medur estate to which therefore Parthasarathi could have no claim. Rangayya also contended that Nidadavole was an impartible estate and
descended to him alone under the rule of primogeniture, as he was the senior of the reversioners of the last male owner, whether that owner was
Narayya (5) or Narayya (17), and also that if Narayya (17) brought the estate of Medur with him into the Nidadavole family by virtue of his
adoption, it became impressed with the character of impartibility and therefore passed to him alone with Nidadavole.
The District Judge found against Rangayya''s pleas founded on the alleged impartibility of Nidadavole; but he found that the alleged will of
Narayya (5) was a forgery, and that for this and various other reasons the adoption of Narayya (17) by Pupamma How was invalid. He, therefore,
dismissed Parthasarathi''s suit so far as the Medur estate was concerned, but gave him and 2nd defendant Venkatanarasimha (12) each a decree
for a one-third share of the Nidadavole estate.
It is against this decree that Parthasarathi and Rangayya respectively have brought the present Appeals Nos. 41 and 32 of 1904.
Counsel for the appellant in Appeal No. 41 requested that that Appeal and No. 32 might to be tried separately from Appeals No. 122 and 123
of 1900, but it seems to us more convenient to deal with all four appeals in one judgment.
The main questions, then, which arise for decision are whether the Nidadavole estate is impartible, or follows the ordinary Hindu Law which
governs the descent of partible estates; and whether the adoption of Narayya (17) is invalid. This latter question depends mainly on whether the
will of Narayya (5) is genuine or not, whether it was a sufficient authority to Papamma Row to make the adoption, and whether the adoption is
invalid by reason of Papamma Row having been coerced into making it by a threat of being criminally prosecuted if she did not do so.
Before discussing the evidence as to whether the Nidadavole estate is partible or impartible, we may briefly refer to two former suits in which
the question has been before the Courts. In O.S. No. 17 of 1871, which is generally referred to as the first Nuzvid suit, Venkatanarasimha (12)
brought a suit against his five brothers (as shown in the genealogical tree) for his one-sixth share of the new Nuzvid estate which was carved out of
the old Nuzvid estate and granted under a separate sanad to their grandfather, Ramachandra (3) in 1802. His claim was resisted on the ground that
the old Nuzvid estate, as it existed prior to 1802, was impartible, and that the new Nuzvid estate retained the same quality notwithstanding the
grant to Ramachandra (3) in 1802. The Courts in this country upheld the defence, but the Privy Council on appeal reversed their decrees and
allowed Venkatanarasimha''s claim on the ground that though the old Nuzvid estate was admittedly descendible to a single heir, yet that quality did
not attach to the new Nuzvid estate granted to Ramachandra (3) who had never previously held an estate descendible to his eldest male heir.
Looking to the terms of the sanad and all the circumstances of the case, they found that the new Nuzvid estate was held as an ordinary Zamindari
descendible to Ramachandra''s heirs according to the ordinary Hindu Law, and therefore partible. But the Privy Council expressly refrained from
giving any opinion as the quality of the Nidadavole estate for which a sanad was at the same time and in the same terms issued to
Venkatanarasimha (2) the elder brother of Ramachandra (3). Raja Venkata Rao v. Court of Wards ILR (1879) 2 M. 128.
In the second Nuzvid suit (O.S. No. 2 of 1873) the three younger brothers of Venkatanarasimha (12) sued for their respective shares of the
new Nuzvid estate, and this Court, on the evidence then before it, held that the old estate prior to 1802 was impartible, and that the new Nuzvid
estate was also impartible. But the decision of the Privy Council in the prior Nuzvid suit was given soon after this, and was accepted by the parties
as deciding their rights in the second suit also.
It is not contended that the decisions in those suits as to the quality of the old Nuzvid estate with regard to impartibility renders the matter
resjudicata in the present suits - since the parties in the present suits are different. A great deal of evidence has now been adduced in addition to
what was then before the Courts, so that the decision in those cases cannot now be even regarded as opinions of great authority, though, no doubt,
we are bound to give the most respectful consideration to the reasons given for the decisions on the evidence then before the Courts.
As observed by Sir Richard Couch in the case of Srimantu Raja Yarlagadda, Mallikarjuna v. Srimantu Raja Yarlagadda Durga L.R. 17 I.A.
134, "" the question whether an estate is subject to the ordinary ""Hindu Law of succession, or descends according to the rule"" of primogeniture
must be decided in each case according to the ""evidence given in it."" This rule was lately re-affirmed by the Privy Council in the Udayarpaliam
case.
We propose, therefore, first to refer briefly to the origin of the Nuzvid Estate, and then to consider in detail the manner in which it was held
when the British took possession of the country in the middle of the eighteenth century and onwards from that period until the present time. We
shall find that throughout a great part of that time the estate was ""held in shares by more than one member of the family at a time, and that the
conduct of the family negatives any consciousness that the estate was by family custom impartible and descendible to a single heir, and we shall
thus be led to the conclusion that the estate is subject'' to the ordinary rule of Hindu Law in regard to coparcenary property and is partible.
The Nuzvid estate is situated in that part of the country known as the Northern Circars, and prior to 1765 was subject to the Mahomedan
Subhadar or Viceroy of the Deccan, the seat of whose power was at Hyderabad. In that year Lord Clive obtained for the East India Company a
grant of that part of them in which Nuzvid is situated, and in the following year the grant was confirmed by a treaty entered into with the Nizam.
The earliest authentic account of Nuzvid is found in Mr. Grant''s ""Political Survey of the Northern Circars,"" written in 1783 and published as an
Appendix (p. 205) to the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on the Affairs of the East India Company. Mr. Grant had been for many years
resident in Hyderabad and had special opportunities of acquiring correct information. He writes : - ""Nujere, or Noozed, the capital *** of ""the
extensive deshmooky, supposed to appertain by right of ""Sanads, to Macca Narayana Appa Row of the Velarna caste. ""Macca Venkayya, the
first of this family, came from the ""Carnatic, and rented five or six villages of Golapille or ""Nujere in 1652; twelve years after, the next in succession
obtained a lease of the whole pergunnah, and took the name ""of Appa Row, in addition to the local patronymic of Macca. ""In the beginning of the
present century the fifth descendant, ""by the actual Zemindari, grants of Amildars was for a time ""in possession of the several districts which
actually compose ""this territorial jurisdiction, but under the Government of ""Rustum Khan, the whole family were expelled, and the lands ""put under
the immediate management of Tahsildars for twelve ""successive years afterwards. However, on a change of the ""provincial ruler, an upstart of the
name of Venkiah was produced, under the patronage of the Condana family who were ""the acting farming superintendents, and then of
considerable ""influence with Ali Kuli Khan, the Amildar, as the heir of the ""line to Appa Row, and in that capacity, was reinstated in 1738 ""in part
of the Zemindari jurisdiction. Jaggiah, the brother ""of this pretender who succeeded, died a prisoner in Bussy''s. ""camp before Khalburga in 1755 -
6; from this time forward, ""Venkatadri Appa Row, another pretender through the management of Condana, and influence of Hussein Ali Khan,
was put in possession, in virtue of Amildari Sanads, but ""participated the management of his deshmooky, with his ""brother Narayya, until the year
1772; when dying, the latter ""assumed the Zemindari by sufferance of English, without any ""other right, and under the same authority, was expelled,
as a ""rebel, in the present year, 1783.
This account indicates that when the British took possession of the country in 1766, Venkatadri and his brother, Narayya, were in joint
posession of the Zemindari, having been reinstated through the good offices of the Gondana people, who were the acting farmers of the revenue,
and by the authority of Hussain Ali Khan, the Nizam''s Amildar, or Chief Civil officer, in that part of the country. An attempt was made to show
that the younger brother, Narayya, was only a manager under his elder brother, but we think that the evidence very clearly negatives this
contention. Paupiah, the representative of the Condana family, and this Naryya some years later had a dispute regarding their respective right to the
Char Mahal villages; and in his petition (Exhibit MMMMMMMM (1) the Circuit Committee which investigated the claim, Paupiah states that his
ancestor, Iyenah ""brought them both (i.e., Venkatadri and his brother, Narayya) and substituted them in the Zemindari of Nuzvid, from which time
they continued to manage their country &c."" This would indicate that from the beginning both the brothers had an equal interest, not that the
younger became the manager of his elder brother as regards part of the estate. There is a great mass of evidence to show that each brother granted
Inams to Brahmins and others from the part of the estate in his possession. It was observed by this Court in the judgment in the second Nuzvid suit
that such grants are sometimes made by younger members of a family without authority, and that Zemindars are often unwilling to resume them
owing to their regard for the grantors, or the piety and learning of the grantees. This, no doubt, may explain occasional grants of small extent, but it
is not easy to accept it as a sufficient explanation of the numerous grants in the present case. We would especially refer to a Exhibit
MMMMMMMM (2) which is a Zemindari Sanad granted to four members of the Condana family and their heirs for ever in 1757 - 8 for two
parganahs of the Char Mahal. It is a grant by both the brothers jointly and by one Boochemmah. Who this Boochammah is does not appear, but
she was probably a widow of a member of the family who was regarded as having a coparcenary right. She does not sign the grant, but it is signed
and sealed by both the brothers as being equally grantors. Another important Sanad signed and sealed by both the brothers Exhibit
DDDDDDDDD, whereby the mirasi or hereditary office of Desapandiya of the Grollapalle Parganah was granted to certain persons, the former
Sanads in favour of other persons being cancelled as issued in error.
Again Exhibit TTTTTT is a grant in 1769 by Narayya alone to a certain Brahmin, authorizing him to collect certain grain fees for ever from all
the villages in the Parganah of Baharuzhally. There are a number of other grants by Narayya alone between 1756 and 1769.
Looking to the number and character of these grants, we think that they are important evidence that Narayya had a share in the Zamindari. It is
difficult to suppose that they could all have been made by him as a younger brother without any coparcenary right.
Exhibit 196 is an agreement entered into in 1766 between General Caillard, who commanded the Company''s troops, and the Zamindars of
Ellore and Mustaphanagur, i.e., Nuzvid, whereby the latter promised to assist the former with troops and supplies. The printed papers in this suit
do not show who signed this agreement, but it is stated at page 298 of the Kistna Manual that it is signed by both Venkatadri and Narayya. After
the British took possession of the whole country they leased it out to Hussein Ali Khan from 1766 to 1769. During the time he was renter, the two
brothers paid their quotas of the revenue due by the Nuzvid Zemindari through him. Exhibit FFF shows that it was Narayya, the younger brother,
who paid up the greater part of the large arrears due by himself and Venkatadri, and the balance still due was shown as due by both. After the
expiry of the lease to Hussein Ali Khan we find from the Register of cowles kept in the Collector''s Office (Exhibits GGG(2), GGG(1) and KKK)
that the Zemindari was leased in equal shares to each brother, first for one year (1769-70) and afterwards for three years (1770-2). Each brother
was granted a separate cowle for certain named villages ""and all other places now in his possession exclusive of the share of"" the other brother.
Each brother is equally styled ""Zamindar of Nuzvid"". The ""tribute"" shown as due by each brother is Rs. 48,000 and each is granted a similar
complementary deduction for ""presents and allowances"". It seems to us impossible to get over the effect of these documents by saying that
Narayya was merely managing half the Zemindari for his brother.
Again in the Collector''s letter to Government on the 23rd March 1771 (Exhibit LLL) we find it stated that the Zemindari of Nuzvid was rented
to the Muglatore Zemindar by Appa Row and Narayana Row, both brothers being treated as jointly entitled to rent the Zemindari. In this
document we also find that the sums due from Appa Row and Narayana Row, on account of the Nuzvid Zemindari and the Ellore Haveli are
stated, and it has to be noted that the sum due by each brother was on account of his half share showing clearly that the Government recognised
that each brother had a right to a specific half share both in the Zemindari and in the Ellore Haveli. The letter in which these statements are
recorded is dated March 1771. Exhibit NNNNNNNN is a receipt granted for a sum of money received from a Sowcar on account of the
revenue of the Nuzvid Estate, and in it the sums due from Appa Row and Narayana Row are shown separately and are both entered as Rs.
20,000. In Exhibit OOOOOOOO also reference is made as to the payment of Rs. 7,000 on account of Rajah Appa Row and Rajah Narayana
Row, who are treated as joint Zemindars.
But more important than all these are the proceedings of the Government authorities on the death of Venkatadri in 1771. These are contained
in Exhibits MMM and NNN. Exhibit MMM is an extract from the proceedings of the Chief in Council at Masulipatam, dated September 1771,
and runs as follows:
Extract from Masulipatam consultations, dated September 1771.
He acquaints the Board that he has received advice of the ""death of Appa Row, joint Zemindar of Nuzvid with Narayana ""Row; that he died
without issue and that the next heir is ""Narayana Row who was his full and only brother.
Exhibit NNN is an extract from the proceedings of Government thereon, dated September 1771. It runs: - ""No. 180. From ""the Chief, &c.,
Council at Masulipatam, dated the 21st instant, ""advising of the death of Appa Row and that the half of the ""Zamindari that was under him
devolves to his brother, Narayana ""Row, as he died without issue, but that they have given orders ""that no part of the revenue of the late Appa
Row''s Districts be ""collected by Narayana Row until he shall have entered into pro-""per engagements for the payment of that part of the
Zammabundy which was to have been paid by Appa Row.
It will be observed that the elder brother is expressly described as ""joint Zemindar of Nuzvid with Narayana Row"" and half the Zamindari is
said to devolve on Narayya as Venkatadri had no issue. It seems clear from this that the chief local Revenue authorities (the Chief in Council at
Masulipatam) considered that if Venkatadri had had issue his half share would have devolved on them instead of going to Narayya; in other words,
that the Zamindari was not impartible and descendible to a single heir, but was heritable in the shares in which it was then held by the two brothers.
It is also clear that each brother was in enjoyment of separate districts in the Zemindari. Narayya was not allowed to take possession of the half
share he inherited from his brother until he gave security for the revenue. Had he newly succeeded to the whole estate, security would have been
required for the whole revenue, and not merely for one half.
As against the concurrent weight of these documents there is nothing to indicate that Venkatadri was at any time sole Zemindar except a
statement in the petition of Narayya (Exhibit 22) to the Circuit Committee in 1786, that Venkatadri. succeeded to the Zemindari on the death of
Jagannadha, and that on the death of Venkatadri he himself became Zemindar. These statements are made in a part of the petition dealing with the
dispute with the Condana people regarding the Char Mahal, and may be explained by these villages appertaining to Venkatadri''s share. In any
case, the effect of the statements is neutralized by another statement in the same petition in which Narayya says, ""Since these thirty years I have
managed the business of my Zemindari, twenty of which I have behaved well towards the Company"" and so on. As this was written in 1786, thirty
years just takes us back to 1756, and the statement agrees with the other evidence that he succeeded to the Zemindari in that year with his brother
Venkatadri. The present 1st defendant Rangayya (11) summed up the whole position accurately enough in his petition (Exhibit 98) in 1887, when
the said ""Venkatadri and Narayya divided and ruled the estate equally; but Venkatadri in course of time died childless, and his mistress made satti :
and Narayya became sole ruler of the Zemindari.
That the view we have adopted was the view of the local authorities soon after the date of the events appears from the letter (Exhibit 224) of
the Collector Mr. Branfell, to the Board of. Revenue written in February 1801, in which when dealing with a dispute'' between the sons of
Narayya as to the right to succeed to the estate, he says, ""I understand Ramachandra Row conceives ""himself entitled to share the Nuzvid
Zamindari with his brother ""Appa Row, in consequence of their father, Narasimha Appa Row, ""late Zamindar of that country, having shared it with
his elder ""brother, Venkatadri Appa Row. At first he was allowed as his "" portion the six parganahs in the Condapalh Circar, which are ""computed
at one-third of the value of the Zamindari, but subsequently by tampering with Hussein Ali Khan, the Amildar at ""that period, he prevailed upon him
to order an equal division of ""the country, which accordingly took place. Upon the death of ""Venkatadri Appa Row, who died without issue, the
management ""of that Zemindari devolved upon Narasimha Appa Row.
It may be observed that the following documents referred to by us in regard to this part of the case were not before this Court when the
judgments in the two Nuzvid suits were written, viz., FFF, GGG, KKK, LLL, MMM, NNN, MMMMMMMM (2) and also a number of
documents showing grants of Inams by Narayya.
After Venkatadri''s death in 1771 there was no claimant to his share of the estate except Narayya. He therefore succeeded to it in addition to
his own share, and thus became possessed of the whole estate, which he enjoyed until December 1783, when Government declared that he had
forfeited his Zemindari for rebellion and would never be restored"" (Exhibit. 214). His fort was shortly afterwards destroyed by Captain Lysaught.
In January 1784 Government favourably entertained the proposal of the Chief-in-Council at Masulipritam to appoint the son of the rebel as his
successor in the Zamindari Exhibit 20), and in September of the same year a ""Sanad or commission of Rajahship"" (Exhibit 21) was issued to
Venkatanarasimha, his son. This Sanad after reciting the dispossession of Narayya, states that the Governor in Council ""reposing special trust and
confidence in the integrity and good management of his son, Raja Venkatanarasimha Appa Row Bahadur, do hereby constitute him to the said
Zamindari of Nuzvid * * and confirm him in all the rights and privileges thereunto belonging"". It has been argued that there was no forfeiture in. this
case, but only the removal of one member of the family for misconduct, and the substitution of another; and in support of this view reliance is
placed upon the Ramnad case. ILR (1893) 24 M. 629. It is clear, however, from Exhibits 214 and 20 that it was a complete forfeiture, and that
Government considered itself free to convert the estate into Havelly, that is, ordinary Government lands, and that it was re-granted to the son
purely as an act of grace. In the previous litigation the Courts (including the Privy Council) have always referred to this transaction as a forfeiture
for rebellion, and we see no reason to take any other view of its character. In making the re-grant, however, to his son the Government did not
express any intention to interfere with the quality of the estate in regard to its descendibility to heirs. We take it that in accordance with the principle
laid down in the Hansapur case Baboo Beer Partab Sahee v. Maharaja Rejender Partab Sahee (1867) 12 M.I.A. 33, and affirmed in the
Sivagunga case Muttu Vadvganadha Tevar v. Dora Singha Tevar ILR (1881) 3 M. 290, the re-grant would not operate to render it partible if it
was previously impartible and descendible to a single heir. It, no doubt, rendered the estate the self-acquisition of the new grantee, but that would
not destroy its character of impartiality if it possessed that character before the forfeiture. (Sivaganga case p. 308). On the other hand if the estate
was partible, as we find it was in the present case, there is nothing in the forfeiture and re-grant to affect that quality of the estate. The only effect
would be that it would devolve as self-acquired, not as ancestral, property. There is nothing in the Sanad or in the correspondence at the time to
suggest that Government recognized the estate as an impartible one, or gave it to the grantee with special advertence to the fact that he was the
eldest son of his father. He was a child of 8 years of. age, and his brother, Ramachandra Row, was then a baby of three years. The rebel Narayya
continued to give trouble for some time after his deposition, and after his death his second wife claimed a share of the Zamindari for her son,
Ramachandra Row (Exhibits 26 and 27), and fomented disturbances of a serious character, so much so that at one time his claims were said to be
supported by a force of 20,000 men. During this period and until 1793 the Estate was managed by a Dewan on behalf of the minor,
Venkatanarasimha Row, but in that year it was taken under the direct management of the Company and so remained until the permanent settlement
of 1802. It was however, expressly stated that the Government did ""not mean in any respect to affect the rights of the Zamindar, but merely to
interpose as authorized by his Kabooliat, until such time as we shall be satisfied of his competency to undertake the management"" of the Zammdan
(Exhibits 29, QQQ). His conduct was very unsatisfactory, and in 1793 he was removed from all interference in the management of the Estate
(Exhibit VVV), while in the following year he was placed under personal restraint (Exhibit AAAA.) Exhibit EEEEEEEE shows that allowances
were made to him and other members of the family while the estate was ""under sequestration.
Meantime the question of the permanent settlement came prominently to the front and in February 1801, the Collector Mr. Branfell, wrote
(Exhibit 224) to the Board of Revenue, ""I ""have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 18th ""ultimo, and beg you will be pleased to
inform the Board that ""I understand Ramachandra Row conceives himself entitled to ""share the Nuzvid Zamindari with his brother, Appa Row, in
consequence of their father, Narasimha Appa Row, late ""Zamindar of that country, having shared it with his elder ""brother, Venkatadri Appa
Row. At first he was allowed as his ""portion the six parganas in the Condapalli Circar which are ""computed at one-third of the value of the
Zamindari, but ""subsequently by tampering with Hussein Alli Khan, the ""Amildar at that period"", he prevailed upon him to order an equal ""division
of the country, which; accordingly took place. Upon ""the death of Venkatadri Appa Row, who died without issue, ""the management of that
Zamindari devolved upon Narasimha ""Appa Row.
""It appears to be the opinion of the most intelligent natives ""that it should be divided between Appa Row and Ramachandra ""Row, in the same
manner as was done between their father and ""uncle when the country by the demise of a relation fell to their ""lot, that is, the five parganas in the
Ellore Circar should be ""given to the former, and the six parganas in the Condapalli ""Circar to the latter.
""Viewing it in a political light I am clearly of opinion that ""the tranquility of the country is more likely to be preserved by ""adopting the above
arrangement than any other which could ""be proposed. Appa Row may possibly conceive himself injured ""by the measure, but I confess I do not.
In July of the following year 1802, Mr. Read, the Collector, considered the claims of the two brothers to the Zamindari and offered a plan for
its division. In paragraph 15 he writes A perusal of the late Collector''s correspondence will show that Ramachandra Row''s claim to participate in
the Zamindari has been long and steadily maintained; so late, indeed, as the 17th July 1795, the views of Venkatanarasimha Appa Row and
Ramachandra Row underwent the discussion of their relatives and adherents. In consequence an agreement was exchanged providing "" for the
division of estate, effects and Zamindari of their deceased father conformable to the usage in such cases.
No doubt remains of the execution of this agreement although I cannot find it received the sanction of the Collector. The elder Appa Row
pretends to state that the document was forcibly taken, and has presented what he terms a corrected plan for the division of the Zemindari. The
charge of forcible exchange I believe to be incorrect, and the agreement to which Venkatanarasimha Appa Row appeals, is no more than a loose
memorandum in the handwriting of the Rajahmundry Peshcar.
Founding a claim on this division of the country, Ramachandra Row appears unwilling to receive charge of the six parganas attached to the
Condapally Circar. But the appearance of discontent conveys no solid objection to Ramachandra Row''s acceptance of such a portion of the
Zemindari as you may think proper to delegate to his charge.
The early misconduct of Venkatanarasimha Appa Row, his inexperience of business and present want of respectable managers, are causes
which to me weaken his claim as the direct hail to the exclusive management of the country. On a subject however, of so delicate a nature and of
such importance to the interests of the claimants, a dispassionate judgment should be formed, and viewing the system of policy as the least
dangerous, I incline to my former recommendation of the division of the ""Zemindari."" (Exhibit FFFF).
In the judgment of the Privy Council in the first Nuzvid suit a reference is made to the above agreement of 1795 between the two brothers, but
the Privy Council rejected it then as not legally proved. It has now been proved [Exhibit NNNNNNNNN] in the same terms as Exhibit FFFF (1)
as enclosure No. 8 to the Collector''s letter, Exhibit 85. It runs as follows : - Having agreed to divide between us who are born of different
mothers, all effects, debts and estate of every description left by our late father together with the Zemindari if hereafter obtained, according to the
Code of Hindu Law. We are quietly to receive our allowances in the same proportion as hitherto paid by Government, as also all advantages
derivable from the Kamatams or otherwise. from the Zemindari until it shall be entrusted to us, and when put in charge of the same we are jointly to
manage it by our servants till the expiration of the first Kabooliat, Venkatanarasimha Appa Row, the eldest brother, taking such a share as
Cotagherry Coniah, Chintapalla Subbiah, Bommanuty Appanah ""Nandoory Latchiminarasoo, Danabanze Venkatramdoo, Basuvarazu Veeranah,
Basavarzu Shoyenah and Doogiraula Ninganah may fix, and when the period of the first Kabooliat shall have elapsed, we are to divide the country
according to the Gentoo law, and transact the affairs thereof separately. These conditions are to be religiously performed by both parties, but if we
prove so unfortunate as not to be restored to the Zamindari, then the present allowance being inadequate for our expenses, we are to make a joint
public representation on the subject and to receive the amount which may be granted in equal proportions, enjoying at the same time the present
allowance in the like manner as we have hitherto been paid and without any debate there upon.
We are to act constantly. Friendly terms in every respect. ""This agreement is tendered by our mutual consent.
It will be observed that this agreement was entered into by the elder brother when ninteen years of age, and by the younger when fourteen, and
it was made under the advice of relatives and adherents. It provides for a complete and equal division of all their property and liabilities, and also
for an equal division of the Zamindari if hereafter obtained, ""according to the Code of Hindu Law."" It is difficult to reconcile this with any
consciousness on the part of the family or their relatives and adherents that the estate was impartible and descendible to a single heir. The Collector
had no doubt of the execution of the agreement, and he also found that it was voluntarily entered into, and this is confirmed by the statement in the
Report of the Special Commission Which was appointed to investigate the claims of the two brothers in September 1802 (Exhibit GGGG), that the
elder brother had intimated his wish to divide as long ago as when the Nuzvid commission was instituted, that is in 1793.
The letters (Exhibits 32 and OOOO) written by the two brothers to the Collector in 1804, show that the agreement to divide was acted on in
regard to all the property except the Zamindari, which, of course, they were unable to divide while it was under sequestration and in the possession
of the Government officers. In dealing with the reports of Mr. Branfell and Mr. Read, the Special Commission already referred to, observe that
the ""claim setup by Ramachandra Row to share the Zemindari with his brother is founded, Mr. Branfell observes on the circumstances of their
father Narasimha Appa Row having shared it with his brother Venkatadri Appa Row, but it appears by Mr. Read''s report that it is also
maintained on the ground of an agreement entered into between the brothers in 1795 for the purpose of dividing the Zemindari, in the event of its
being restored to the family. The intention of dividing the Zemindari having long been in the contemplation of the persons concerned is further
established by an intimation conveyed from the elder brother, Narasimha Appa Row, about the time when the Nuzvid committee was instituted
purporting that he wished to divide ""the Zemindari with his brother"" and added ""judging under these circumstances, and considering the division a
measure of prudence, we recommend to your Lordship the restoration of the parganahs in the Ellore Circar lately under the management of Mr.
Branfell to Narasimha Appa Row and of the six parganahs in the Condapilly Circar to Ramachandra Row, being the natural division of the country
and best calculated to prevent disputes which might arise from a less defined boundary.
The final order of Government in the matter was passed in December 1802 (Exhibit HHHH) and is in these words:
The Board having considered with attention the recommendation of the Special Commission for dividing the Zemindari of Nuzvid and for placing
the Ellore division under the management of Narasimha Row, and the six parganas in the Condapilly Circar under the management of
Ramachandra Row, and learning that it is the wish of both parties that the proposed division should take place, direct accordingly that the
arrangement of ""the special commission be carried into excution.
Sanads (Exhibit JJJJ and 252) in the same terms were issued to the two brothers in accordance with the decision in 1802, but the Colair
villages which formed part of the old estate were never restored (Exhibit 34). In forwarding these sanads to the Collector for delivery to the
Zemindars (Exhibits 240) in March 1803, the Special Commission writes ""The Governor in Council has been ""pleased to restore Zemindari of
Nuzvid to the family of the ""Appa Rows and at the recommendation of the Special Commission to restore the Ellore division to the eldest brother
of the family, Venkatanarasimha Appa Row, and to authorize the six parganahs of Nuzvid in the Condapilly Circar to be conferred on
Ramachandra Row, on the terms described in the accompanying extract of the Proceedings of the Commission.
The Commission do not consider it to be necessary to go into an explanation of the motives of forbearance and of lenity which has induced them
to recommend the restoration of the Zamindari of Nuzvid to the hereditary family, but should the Appa Rows be slow to comprehend the nature of
the intentions of the Governor in Council in re-establishing them in their Zemindari, and the principles of the new system, the Commission rely on
your explaining to them the benefits of that system and removing every doubt they may have of stability.
The Governor in Council having permitted the balances standing against the Nuzvid Zamindari to be written off, the Special Commission
authorize you on making over the Zamindari of Nuzvid to the two brothers to grant each a formal relinquishment of all demands prior to Fasli
1212.
Reading these papers as a whole it is clear that Ramachandra Row and his relatives and adherents always maintained his right to a half share in
the Zemindari at first on the ground that it was enjoyed in equal shares by his father and uncle, and afterwards on the strength of the agreement of
1795 which he and his brother had entered into to divide all their property, including the Zamindari, equally between them. It is also clear that the
elder brother did not claim the whole estate as impartible and descendible to a single heir, but voluntarily admitted his brother''s claim to an equal
share. The Government too, though they at first ignored ''the claims of Ramachandra Row and granted the whole estate in 1784 to his brother, yet
subsequently, after the estate had been taken under management for arrears, they appear not to have felt any necessity to deal with it as an
impartible estate. The Government eventually accepted the wish of the brothers to divide the estate, a proposal which also commended itself on
grounds of policy.
The division of the estate was due mainly to the wish of the parties, under the advice of their relatives and friends, but the exact proportion in
which Government directed the division to be made was due to political considerations with a view to preventing the disputes that might have
arisen from a less clearly defined boundary, and was accepted by the two brothers. As pointed out by the Privy Council in the Devarakota Case
Mallikarjuna v. Durga ILR (1890) 13 M. 420, it must be remembered that at that time there were no Civil Courts competent to decide a disputed
claim to a share in the Zamindari, and the Government was the only authority which could do so. The decision must, therefore, be regarded as of a
quasi judicial character.
We think that the history of the transactions affords strong ground for concluding that neither the family nor the Government regarded the estate
as impartible and as descendible to a single heir only. As to the effect of the grant of the sanad in 1802 in regard to the descendibility of the estate,
it is only necessary to say that the Privy Council in their judgment in the Udayarpaliem case, delivered on the 31st July last, laid it down as now
settled law that the acceptance of a sanad in common form under Regulation XXV of 1802 does not of itself and apart from other circumstances,
avail to alter the succession to an hereditary ""estate."" There is nothing in the present case to indicate that Government in granting the sanad intended
to alter the quality of the estate as regards descendibility. This remained after the grant of the sanad just what it was before the grant. Our
conclusion is that it was not impartible before, and that it so remained after the grant of the sanad.
At the time when the division of the estate was made between Venkatanarasimha (2) and Ramachandra (3), they had a younger brother,
Narasimha (4), who received no separate share. There was a great deal of controversy in subsequent years as to the reason for this ignoring of his
existence or at last of his rights. Various officers held various views at different times. In 1802 he was a boy of 14 years of age, and it is not easy to
suppose that his existence was unknown. Venkatanarasimha (2) was the son of the elder wife of Narayya. The rebel Ramachandra (3) and
Narasimha (4) were both the sons of the younger wife, and it seems probable that in accordance with a view of the law that prevailed at one time
Temmakal v. Subbammal (1864) 2 M.H. C.R. 47, the two uterine brothers were regarded as going together and entitled jointly to one share, the
brother by the other wife being entitled to the other shave. This, at least, would seem to have been the idea of Narasimha himself and of his
advisers, for in 1805 he sued Ramachandra for a half share in the Nuzvid Zamindari comprised in the sanad of 1802. This suit was dismissed on
the ground that he ought to have sued both Ramachandra and his half brother, Venkatanarasimha, for a half share in both the Zamipdaris, i.e.,
Nuzvid and Nidadavole. In 1816 Narasimha, acting on this decision, did so sue, but that suit was dismissed on the ground that the sanads of 1802
were the root of the grantees'' title under Regulation XXV of 1802 and that Narasimha, not having any right under the sanads, could not go behind
them and claim an independent title. The misconceptions created by Regulation XXV of 1802 were at length corrected by the passing of
Regulation IV ofl822, and the Government of Madras passed a special Regulation cancelling the sanad granted to Venkata Narasimha and
Ramachandra in 1802, in order to give their younger brother a portion of the property, but this legislation was over-ruled by the Government of
India and by the Court of Directors. Eventually, through the influence of the Collector, both branches of the family voluntarily made a provision for
Narasimha in satisfaction of his claims. It does not seem to be necessary to refer to these transactions, further than to observe that the litigation of
1816 Venkata Narasimha, the eldest of the three brothers, though he put forward four other defences, Sid not allege the impartible character of the
estate as a defence against his younger brother''s claim for a partition of it. The Provincial Court actually decreed an equal partition of the estate,
yet even in the appeal no plea was raised that the estate was impartible by family custom, or by its inherent character, as being of the nature of a
Principality or Raj or military fief; but Venkata Narasimha in a Supplemental defence did rely on Mr. Branfell''s suggestion that the property should
be equally divided and one s half be given to him as the son of one wife and the other half given to the two sons of the other wife.
Venkata Narasimha (2) remained in sole possession of the Nidadavole estate until 1827 when he died, and was succeeded by his adopted
son, Narayya (5). There being no person who under the ordinary Hindu Law was a coparcener with Narayva (5), no question of partibility or the
reverse then arose.
It may, however, be remarked in passing that the elder surviving widow of the deceased Zamindar, though she then denied the adoption, and
claimed the whole estate for herself, did not base her claim on the ground that by family custom or otherwise, it was impartible and descendible to
a single heir, but solely on the ground that according to the then currently accepted view of the, Hindu Law relating to succession by widows to the
property of husbands, she, as the elder widow was alone entitled to succeed to all her husband''s property, other widows being entitled to succeed
in turn on her death. (Exhibits 50 and 51, Jijoyiamba Bayi Saiba v. Kamakshi Bayi Saiba (1868) 3 M.H.C.R. 447.
In 1843 the estate was sold for arrears of revenue and was bought in by Government which granted a portion of it to Nuzvid in satisfaction of
a large debt due by Narayya to the owner of that estate. The rest of the Nidadavole estate the Government restored to Narayya under a fresh
grant. That the effect of this sale was to cancel Narayya''s title to the estate was decided by the Privy Council in the Tangellamudi case Rajaji
Bahadur Garu v. Parthasaradhi Appa Rau ILR (1902) 26 M. 202, and that decision is binding on the present parties, who were all parties to that
suit also. The counsel for Parthasarathi contends that the sale broke up the estate of Nidadavole, and that even if the estate up to that time was
impartible, it must henceforth be regarded as the self-acquisition of Narayya under the new grant, and would follow the ordinary Hindu Law and
be partible property after his death. He relies on the decision of the Privy Council, in the Merangi case Sri Raja Satrucherla Jagannadha Razu v. Sri
Raja Satrucharla Ramachandra Razu ILR (1891) 14 M. 237, but we are unable to accept this contention. In the Merangi case Government had no
intention of restoring the estate to the former owner when they purchased it, and the retained possession themselves for sometime after their
purchase. Their subsequent grant of it to a son of the former holder was made not on account of any claim which they recognised in the son, but in
order to gratify a third person who had deserved well of the Government. In the present case Government brought about the sale as the only safe
and legal method of effecting the relief of the family"" (Exhibit 232) and protecting the estate against its creditors. Government all along intended to
restore the balance of the estate (after satisfying creditors) to Narayya, and there is no indication that they had any intention of interfering with its
quality in regard to descendibility. In accordance with the principle laid down in the Hansapur case (1867) 12 M.I.A. 33 the inference is that its
quality was unaffected by the sale and re-grant under these special circumstances. We have, however, seen that it was not an impartible estate
prior to the re-grant of 1843, and it, therefore, was not impartible after that event. Narayya (5) remained in enjoyment until 1864 when he died
without issue. He left two widows. Papamma Row and Chinnamma Row, as his heirs. He also left a will. This will was found by the District Judge
not to be genuine; but for the reasons stated later on, we find that the will is certainly genuine. In it Narayya authorized the widows to adopt a son
for him, and directed them to divide his Zemindari and all his other property equally between them. Government objected to the division of the
Zamindari; but agreed to let the widow enjoy the Zamindari jointly, and this they did for nearly twenty years until the death of the younger. If the
Zamindari was impartible, Papamma Row, the senior widow would have been entitled to enjoy the whole Zamindari. She was a woman of great
capacity and determination. The fact that Narayya directed the Zamindari to be equally divided, and that a woman of Papamma Row''s character
consented to allow the junior widow to enjoy the estate equally with her for so many years, is, we think, eloquent testimony to consciousness of the
family that the estate was partible according to the ordinary Hindu Law.
With regard to the second or Nuzvid branch of the family, which enjoyed the Nuzvid estate separately under the sanad of 1802, we may
observe that there were only two successions, viz., in 1814 when Ramachandra (8) died and was succeeded by his only son, Sobhanadri (6), and
again on the death of the latter in 1868. There was no co-parcener in existence when Sobhanadri succeeded, so no question of partibility could
arise. But Sobhanadri left six sons, and, as we have seen, the five younger sons claimed shares in the Nuzvid estate, and brought the two Nuzvid
suits already mentioned in order to establish their claims.
Recapitulating the successions from 1756 we find that two brothers, Venkatadri and Narayya, were joint Zamindars, with exactly e''qual
shares, from that year until 1771 when Venkatadri died, and Narayya then became sole Zamindar until 1784 when he was deposed for rebellion.
The estate was soon afterwards re-granted to his son, Venkata Narasimha, who was in fact, the eldest son, though no stress is laid on that fact in
any of the papers connected with the grant to him. His younger brother, Ramachandra, however, and his adherents, at once disputed his claim to
the whole estate, basing Ramachandra''s claim to a half share on the fact that his father and uncle had enjoyed the estate in moieties.
Venkatanarasimha admitted his brother''s claim as early as 1793, and in 1795 made a formal agreement to divide the Zemindary with him if they
should ever recover it from Government which had sequestered it for arrears and owing to its mismanagement. A Special Commission was
appointed to investigate the claim of Ramachandra, and after an enquiry they recommended the division of the estate between them, and sanads in
exactly the same form were issued to each. In the litigation of 111816 when a younger brother sued for a share of the estate, Venkatanarasimha
did not plead (as he might have done if the fact were so) that the estate was by its inherent nature, or by family custom, impartible and descendible
to a single heir. On the only other occasion when a question as to the partible character of the estate could have arisen, i.e., in connection with the
death of Narayya in 1864, we find that in his will he treated it as partible, and it was enjoyed as such by his, widow for nearly twenty years.
In this state of the evidence as to the manner in which the estate was actually enjoyed since 1756, we think that we may follow the example of
the Privy Council in the Devarakota case, and hold that it is not necessary to go further back. If it were necessary to do so we. should agree with
the District Judge that there is no satisfactory evidence that the Zamindari was held as an impartible estate descendible to a single heir prior to that
time. In addition to the considerations urged by the District Judge we should have to point out that the Persian sanad of 1765 [Exhibit 87 (c)]
which was relied on by this Court in the Nuzvid suit as most important evidence of the military or feudal character of the tenure, is almost certainly
not a genuine document. It is a most important document of title but it was never produced in any suit, or before any authority, or referred to in any
document prior to, the time of the Nuzvid suits a few years ago. It purports to be a grant of the Zamindari by the Nizam Ali Khan to Venkatadri on
the 23th December 1765, and it purports also to grant him the title of Mansabdar and Commander of 3,000 men. Grant in his Political Survey
already referred to makes no reference to this sanad, and it is difficult to suppose that he would not have known of it if it really had been granted.
He speaks of Venkatadri holding under Amildari sanads, but this sanad was not granted either by, or to, an Amildar, but was granted by the
Nizam himself to the Zamindar. Again, if it were genuine, it ought most certainly to have been produced before the Circuit Committee in 1786, or
at least referred to in Exhibit 22, the petition which the rebel, Narayya, presented to the Committee in that year, and in which he set out the history
of the Zamindari in great detail. The Condana people [Exhibit MMMMMMMM (1)] were at that time claiming to have an independent title to the
four Parganas known as the Char Mahal, and Narayya was concerned to refuse their claim and show that they held under a grant from his own
family. It is argued that there was no occasion for Narayya to refer to the sanad of 1765 inasmuch as the Condana people admitted the superior
title of Narayya''s family ; but this is not so. The Condana people, no doubt, admitted an original grant from that family, subsequently confirmed by
the French in February 1759, but they alleged that in May of the same year they had obtained a grant direct from the Nizam in which the grant
from this Narayya''s family is entirely ignored, and they claimed an independent title, which, we may remark in passing, they eventually established
to the satisfaction of the British authorities (Exhibit 219). If Narayya could have referred to a still later grant, such as that of 1765, also direct from
the Nizam, and with the Char Mahal specially mentioned, it would have been a complete answer to the Condana claim Even if Narayya''s sanads
had been lost when his Fort was destroyed in 1784, he could still have referred to the sanad which was of recent origin and was granted to his
brother who was joint Zamindar with him so that he could hardly have failed to know of its existence and importance. The Judge has also found
that Narasimha, the Zamindar in 1798, ought to have produced it with his petition Exhibit 222, dated the 11th November 1798, which was written
in answer to an invitation from the Government to him and all other Zamindars to state their titles with a view to the permanent settlement then in
contemplation. If the document were genuine he certainly ought to have referred to this important title-deed, but though the District Judge admitted
Exhibit 222, we are of opinion that it is not admissible since it appears to be a copy only, of the petition, and there is nothing to show who made it,
or that it is a true copy, or that it was made more than 30 years ago, or that the original was ever sent to the Collector.
Being inadmissible, the argument against the genuineness of the Persian sanad founded on it fails. But we do not agree with the District Judge
that this sanad has been produced from proper custody. It was first produced in the Nuzvid suit by one, Narayya, who was a member of the
Nuzvid or younger branch, and there is no evidence as to how that branch became possessed of it. It ought to have been in the possession of the
elder branch. Even if it had been carried away in 1784, by the mother of Ramachandra Row, it ought to have been restored by her when she gave
up to Mr. Malcolm in 1791 the ""bonds and other valuable documents"" which she had carried off and which Mr. Malcolm restored to the elder
branch (Exhibit 85.) A list of those papers is found in Exhibit MMMMMMMMM, but this sanad does not appear among them. It is, however,
suggested that she wrongfully kept back this paper and did not give it up to Mr. Malcolm. This is a mere surmise, unsupported by any evidence.
The grant, being to one only of the then joint zemindars, was adverse to the claim she svas asserting for her son to half the Zemindari, and if she
had kept back the document, ""it is reasonable to suppose that she would have destroyed it. We do not think that it can be said that this document
has been produced from proper custody. Its age, therefore, raises no presumption that it is genuine."" Another suspicious circumstance connected
with this document is that the original is not now forthcoming, and no explanation of the fact is given. This important document of title which was
kept so carefully for more than a century, (though never produced or referred to, in any of the many transactions of which we have evidence), was
at length produced in the Nuzvid suit, and after it was accepted there as genuine, it has now been allowed to disappear and no one can say how or
why, and we have nothing to examine save a copy of it. This method of dealing with documents, the genuineness of which may be disputed, is now
so well recognized in the Indian Courts that it necessarily adds to the suspicion otherwise attaching to the document. For the reasons we have
stated we conclude that this Persian sanad is not genuine.
In the view that we have taken that the evidence clearly shows that the estate has not been of an impartible character and descendible to a
single heir since 1756, we do not consider it necessary to go further back and discuss whether the estate was prior to that time, held on a military
or feudal tenure or partook of the nature of a Principality or Raj. We may, however, state briefly that we concur in the conclusion of the District
Judge that there is no reason whatever for thinking that the estate ever partook of the nature of a Principality or Raj. There is more show of reason
in support of the idea that it was held on a sort of military tenure or rather that it was a Deshmukhi or renter''s estate burdened with a liability to
furnish a certain number of armed men to the ruling power when so required. No doubt in the first years of their rule the English authorities
regarded the Zemindaris as military or feudal estates (Exhibits 201 and 204) but the incorrectness of that view was explained in the letter of the
Board of Revenue to Government dated the 30th September 1786 (Exhibit JJJ) and the same view as to the true character of these Zamindaris
was maintained in the Fifth Report, pp. 6, 7 and 8. Whatever military assistance was required of the Zamindars it was quite a minor part of their
duty, and it was in the case of this particular Zamindari expressly declared (Exhibit 20) to have ceased altogether after the rebel Narayya was
deposed in 1784. If it existed up to that time it is quite clear that it was not of such a character as to imply that the estate must be held by a single
person only for we find that the Zamindari was, in fact, held by brothers Venkatadri and Narayya, in equal shares from 1756 to 1771, a period
which embraced several years under both Mahomedan and British rule. No presumption in favour of impartibility, therefore, arises from the tenure
on which the estate was held, and there is nothing to negative the positive evidence which we have as to the actual facts of enjoyment since 1756
and the inferences to be drawn from them.
We find that the estate is not impartible and descendible to a single heir, but is partible according to the ordinary Hindu Law applicable to co-
parcenary property.
The next question that arises for decision is whether the Will of Narayya (5) is genuine or not?
The Subordinate Judge found that it was undoubtedly genuine, while the District Judge with somewhat fuller evidence before him found with
equal confidence that it was a forgery. The question has been most fully argued before us, and the conclusion at which we arrive is that the will is
genuine. It is in the following terms:
Will executed on Thursday the 8th Margasira Suddha of the year Rakthakshi, (6th December 1864) by Rajah Narayya Appa Row Bahadur Garu
in favour of my two wives, Papayya and Chinnayya.
As my illness increased, and as I think I would not survive, you both should divide in equal shares my Zamindari Nidadavole and Baharjali
Parganas and Amberpet Pargana, the cash in the upstair building and all other moveable and immoveabte property. It has been arranged that my
nephew (sister''s son) Chiranjivi Vellanki Venkata Krishna Row should enjoy hereditarily from son to grandson the profits of the village of Mandur
attached to Ambarpet Muttah and also of Nagulapalli and Ra