KANNAMMAL Vs. DEIVASIGAMANI GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in each of the suits is the appellant. The plaintiff's husband Manicka gounder, Deivasigamani the respondent in S. A. No. 68 of 1969 and Velu Gounder were brothers. They partitioned their properties and were in separate enjoyment of their shares. The plaintiff's husband died about ten years prior to suit, leaving the plaintiff to succeed him. The plaintiff filed two suits (1) O. S. 518 of 1963 against Velu Gounden and (2) O. S. 519 of 1963 against Deivasigamani out of which the above second appeals have arisen, claiming Rs. 172-50 in each of the suits. The case of the plaintiff is that on 12-8-1957 partition koor chits were executed by all the sharers and each of them took a copy thereof but they were unstamped and unregistered. About two years ago the plaintiff presented the said partition koor chit for validation; but the revenue authorities summoned the other koor chits also from the other sharers and levied the stamp duty and penalty. The case of the plaintiff is that she was called upon to pay the entire duty and penalty and that she paid the entire stamp duty and penalty levied amounting to Rs. 690 on 31-8-1962 when the revenue authorities demanded payment. The present suits are for contribution calling upon the defendants to pay a fourth share, namely, Rs. 172-50 each.

(2.) THE defendants filed written statements contending that the documents were validated only at the instance of the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the share of the amount claimed; and in any event the share of penalty cannot be recovered and that the suit has been instigated by the other brother Annamalai.

(3.) THE trial court decreed the suits holding that the defendants are liable to pay their share of the amount as claimed in the plaints. Two appeals A. S. No. 115 of 1966 and A. S. No. 116 of 1966 were filed by the defendants in each of the suits and the contention was that they are not liable to contribute their share. The learned Judge relying upon the judgment in Sundaramireddi v. Pattabiramireddi, 58 Mad LW 461= 1945-2 Mad LJ 253 = (AIR 1946 Mad 50), reversed the decision of the trial Court. The headnote in this decision runs as follows-