Devaguptapu Peda Satyanarayana by his father and guardian Appalarazu vs Gopalapati Sarasamma and Others

One Venkappa, deceased, was Kurnam of Koduru. He had two daughters, one the 1st defendant and, other the mother of the plaintiff.

Venkappa died in 1901 and the plaintiff, who was then a minor, was registered as Venkappa''s heir u/s 13 of Madras Act II of 1894. The lands

which, formed the emoluments of the Kurnam''s office were in 1903 enfranchised in the name of the 1st defendant, the plaintiff being then still a

minor and his mother being dead. The plaintiff now sues for, the cancellation of the pattah issued in the name of the ist defendant and for issue of

pattah in his own name. He failed in both the Courts below. We think the plaintiff''s suit was rightly dismissed. At the time of the enfranchisement of

the ist defendant the plaintiff was not Venkappa''s heir in respect of any other property of his. The plaintiff''s claim is based before us, not on the

ground that he has actually been appointed Kurnam at the time of the enfranchisement, but on the ground that he had-been registered as

Venkappa''s heir as above-mentioned. As was observed in Venkata v. Rama ILR (1884) M. 249 the plaintiff, if he had been appointed to the

office before the land was enfranchised, might have a foundation for his claim to the lands. But the question is whether mere registration u/s 13 of

the Madras Act II of 1894 gives the plaintiff the right which he seeks to enforce. The effect of such registration is merely to declare that the person

registered is entitled, on attaining majority, or within three years thereafter, to be appointed to the office, provided he is duly qualified. In the

meantime the duties of the office are to be performed by some other qualified person. Till enfranchisement the inam, of course, continued to be

attached to the office, but at the time of enfranchisement there was no good ground for passing over the ist defendant and issuing pattah in the

name of the plaintiff who was not the office-holder then and who might never be appointed to the office.

We, therefore, dismiss the second appeal with costs.