THIMMAYYA AJIRI Vs. MARUDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by defendant 3 against that part of the final decree made by the Court below by which he was directed to pay to defendant 1 a sum of Rs. 1,344-86 paise and to defendants 2 and 4 a sum of Rs.5,379-43 paise. This liability related to the period between December 4, 1951 and March 31, 1963. Defendant 3 contends in this appeal that the determination of the amounts, was not properly made.

(2.) A few facts which we should enumerate for understanding the complaint ventilated in this appeal are these:During the pendency of the suit all the properties belonging to the family except home-farm lands which were in the possession of the plaintiffs and defendant 3 continued to be in possession of a receiver who had been appointed at some antecedent stage. According to the report of the Commissioner, the receiver was not able to collect all the income due to the family from the tenants who cultivated them. The receiver was able to collect smaller sums of money and after their deposit in court, some part of it was distributed and what remained was a sum of Rs.23,934-51. The Plaintiffs and defendant 3 were in possession of what is described as home-farm lands and the Commissioner was of the opinion that the income derived from the home-farm by defendant 3 was Rs. 11,532-00 during the period with which we are concerned. He made an allowance in regard to the amounts which should be credited in favour of defendant 3 and one of the items debited against defendant 3 was the income from the home-farm amounting to Rs. 11,532-00 nP.

(3.) The only item in that statement which is called in question by Mr. U. L. Narayana Rao for defendant 3 is the sum of Rs. 11,532 which, according to the Commissioner, was the income from the home-farm derived by defendant 3. Mr. U. L. Narayana Rao, also maintained that since defendant 3 was himself entitled to an annual income of 104 muras and 101/2 seers as stated by the Commissioner in his earlier report, all that income should have been credited by the Commissioner to his account instead of crediting only the share of defendant 3 in the amounts collected by the receiver as income from the lands in his management.