PARAMESWARA IYER Vs. ANANTHANARAYANA IYEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S. No. 324 of 1120 on the file of the Ettumanoor Munsiff's court is the special appellant. THE suit was for recovery of a sum of Ind. Rs. 390 As. 12 P.O, advanced to or spent on behalf of one Nagammal (deceased ) for her maintenance during a period of eleven and a half months preceding the date of her death on 14.6.1117. THE cause of action was stated differently in the two courts below which came to different conclusions according to what appeared to each of them to be the true cause of action involved in the suit. THE first court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff while the lower appellate court dismissed the suit. THE plaintiff has therefore brought this special appeal.

(2.) THE plaintiff and the defendant are members of a Hindu Mitakshara family. In a prior litigation between the members of the family (O.S. No. 87 of 1099 on the file of the Kottayam District Court) the parties came to a compromise under which Krishna Iyer, the father of the defendants, agreed to pay a sum annually for the maintenance of Nagammal his mother. THE plaintiff is the son of one Venkateswara Iyer, another son of Nagammal. He puts forward the claim for the amount which accrued due to the deceased Nagammal under the terms of the compromise during the above period on the ground that he maintained her during the period. It was established at the trial that, under the terms of the compromise, Krishna Iyer was bound to pay a sum of Rs. 448 annually for the maintenance of Nagammal for which sufficient family funds had been entrusted to him, that the amount was not paid by him to Nagammal, that for successive periods suits had to be filed by Venkateswara Iyer in conjunction with Nagammal for recovery of such arrears, and that during the period in question there was as before a compete default on the part of the defendants in the payment of the maintenance. It therefore follows that the defendants were liable to pay a sum equal to the plaint amount to the deceased Nagammal and that deceased Nagammal, had she lived, could have enforced payment of the same through court.

(3.) WE therefore reverse the decree of the lower appellate court and restore that of the trial court. The special appeal is thus allowed with costs here and in the lower appellate court. Appeal allowed.