MATURI PULLALAH Vs. MATURI NARASIMHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by:

(2.) THIS appeal mainly raises the question of the factum and validity of a family arrangement alleged to have been effected between the members of a joint Hindu family. The following genealogy will be useful to appreciate the contentions of the parties: (See genealogy on next page) Peda Venkaiah, Venkateswara Rao, Pulliah the son of Venkatramaiah by his first wife, and Venkatramaiah died in 1928, 1933, 1936 and 1952 respectively. Peda Venkiah had no ancestral property: all his properties were his self-acquisitions. His eldest son, Venkatramaiah, was not an intelligent man, though he was good enough to look after the cultivation of the lands. His younger son, Narasimha, was an able man in whom the father had confidence and though, he was the younger son, he was helping his father in the management of the family affairs and indeed even during his father's lifetime many properties were purchased in his name. After the death of the father, Narasimha was in charge of the management of the money lending business and the business at Eluru and was also looking after the court affairs. During the course of his management large extent of properties were purchased in his name. After the death of Venkatramaiah in 1952, disputes arose between Narasimha and Venkatramaiah's son, Pullaiah, which led to the filing of O. S. No. 69 of 1952 by Pullaiah in the court of the District Judge, Eluru, against Narasimha and his sons and others for partition of the joint family property by metes and bounds. He impleaded Narasimha and his sons as defendants 1 to 4 and his mother, as defendant 5. The other defendants were persons who had joint interest in some of the family properties.

(3.) THE first contention turns upon the pleadings and the issues framed thereon. In paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the written statement, the 1st defendants stated how his father before his death gave directions that when the family properties were divided between him and Venkatramaiah such additional property as might be fixed by their mother should be given to him, how after his father's death Venkatramaiah requested him to manage the family properties as he was doing before and promised that he would give him such extra property, how in 1922, when he fell ill, ho insisted, upon a namely and for giving him his extra proposed Venkatramaiah again requested him to disrupt the family but to continese management as before on the promise that when the partition was effected his branch would take only 2 shares and the 1st defendant's branch would take 3 shares of the joint family properties, how thereafter be continued to manage the properties as he was doing before and improved them how in 1931 Venkatramaiah asked him be joint at least for 6 more years and have the aforesaid shares in toe proper when they entered into a partition the after and how in 19S9 the said oral arrangement to divide the properties in the said shares was embodied in a document. After the said recitals, in paragraph 9, he proceeded to state: