1. The nature and extent of the estate taken by Peramma in items 1, 2 and 8 of the schedule to the plaint, the property with which we are concerned, is to be ascertained on a construction of Exhibit A, an instrument by which, on her husband’s death, his brother’s sons, the 17th and 18th defendants, gave her one-third of his property. I do not think there can be much doubt that on the true construction of that document she became absolutely entitled to the property given to her: the expression neither we nor our heirs will have any objection to your dealing as you please with the one-third share allotted to “you”–this, 1 think, is a correct, though not a literal, translation of the portion of the instrument –seems to me to show that the 17th and 18th defendants did not intend to retain anything in the nature of a reversion in the property given. That being so, on Peramma’s death the property devolved on her two daughters, Adamma and Nagamma, and on Adamma’s death, her share of it devolved on Nagamma, her sister, who is the 19th defendant in the suit See Venkataramakrishna Rau v. Bhujanga Rau 19 M. 107 : 6 M.L.J. 16 . The plaintiff who is Adamma’s daughter rests her case on an alleged relinquish merit by Nagamma of her right in the property, an operation by which, according to the plaintiff, the property has passed to herself as the next heir of Peramma.
2. Nagamma’s written statement disclaimed interest in the property and she did not appear at the trial, bat the District Munsif says that 2nd and 3rd defendants, who are the plaintiff’s brothers, denied the relinquishment.
3. The District Munsif framed an issue on the question (the 6th issue), but the plaintiff-offered no evidence and the Court found against her.. Prom that finding she did not appeal to the District Judge.
4. The course the suit has taken suggests some intrigue between the plaintiff and the 19th defendant, but there is no evidence as against the 2nd and 3rd defendants that there was any relinquishment by the 19th defendant. I think that, in these circumstances, we must hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to present possession of the property and that her suit ought to have been dismissed.
5. In the plaint we. find two allegations in the nature of alternatives: (1) that Nagamma has relinquished her rights and (2) that the plaintiff’s mother Adamma had, by adverse possession, acquired all Nagamma’s rights. Neither of these cases has been made out.
6. In my opinion, in these circumstances, we have no alternative but to reverse the decrees of the lower Courts and dismiss the plaintiff’s suit. The suit will be dismissed, but the parties will bear their own costs throughout.
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.
7. I entirely agree.