MOOLA GOWRAMMA Vs. KVENKATASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the decree passed in Original Suit No. 118 of 1950 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bellary. The defendant in that suit is the appellant in this appeal and the plaintiff is the respondent. (1a) The plaintiff sued in a representative capacity and prayed that an account be taken of the moveable and immovable properties of late Moola Venkata Rangiah and the same may be administered under the decree of the court. A preliminary decree in terms prayed for has been granted. Aggrieved by this decision, the defendant has to come up in appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff claims to be a creditor of the deceased Moola Venkata Rangian, the husband of the defendant. Late Moola Venkata Rangiah died intestate on 16-6-1948. According to the plaintiff he had executed Exhibit A-19 promissory note for a sum of Rs. 44,000/- in his favour for valid consideration. During his lifetime he had made some payments towards the amount due under Exhibit A-19 and endorsed the same thereon. It is further alleged that after the death of Moola Venkata Rangiah the defendant had made some payments towards the amount due and that the balance amount is due. The amount due is said to be Rs. 36,720-14-0 with future, interest. The plaintiff alleges that subsequent to the death of Moola Venkata Rangiah, though the defendant had agreed to discharge the debt in question from out of the Insurance amounts due to her husband's estate, she had failed to do so. It is complained that the defendant had misapplied monies collected and mismanaged the estate. It is further alleged that she had not only failed to discharge the plaintiff's debts but has also not discharged the debts due to others. In particular it is alleged that she defaulted in paying the income-tax due from the deceased to the Government and consequently the Revenue Authorities had attached and sold some of the house properties of the deceased for a sum of Rs. 14,000/-.

(3.) The defendant denied the truth and the validity of Exhibit A-19. She contended that it was a got up document and at any rate it was not supported by considerations. She further contended that the grounds set out in the plaint are insufficient to grant a decree for administration of the estate of the deceased. She also contended that the plaintiff who claims to be a simple money creditor cannot get a decree for administration. The trial court has rejected the contentions put forward by the defendant and has passed a preliminary decree.