THADAVARTHI BAPAYYA AND ORS. Vs. MYNENI PUNDARIKAKSHAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two second appeals arise out of two connected suits tried by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali. As the parties were differently arrayed in the suits it will be convenient to refer to them according to their description in the cause -title of the main suit, O.S. No. 61 of 1940, which was brought for possession with mesne profits of certain lands of the plaintiff sold during his minority by his natural father acting as his guardian. The first defendant was the vendee and defendants 2 to 5 are his sons.

(2.) THE plaintiff's adoptive father, Chelamayya Chowdari, carried on dealings with the first defendant a money lender, and for the amount due in respect of such dealings executed a promissory note (Ex. D -7) for Rs. 1,465 -3 -5 on 5th June, 1923. He died in January, 1925, leaving him surviving his widow Srikrishnamma, whom he had authorised to make an adoption, and she accordingly adopted her sister's son, the plaintiff, who was then a minor. On 16th April, 1925, she executed for herself and on behalf of her son as his guardian a promissory note for Rs. 4,540 -6 -8 in favour of the first defendant. The note (Ex. D -6) recited that a sum of Rs. 2,480 -6 -8 was due in respect of her husband's dealings including the principal and interest due under Ex. D -7 and the balance Rs. 2,060 was advanced in cash to her on that day. The total amount was to carry interest at 12 per cent, per annum. The purpose for which Rs. 2,060 was borrowed by her was not mentioned in the note. This note was renewed by her on 6th April, 1928, by the execution of another note, Ex. D -5, for Rs. 5,416 -5 -11 being the principal and interest due under the previous note Ex. D -6. Soon after, she died in June, 1928, and her sister's husband and natural father of the plaintiff, China Seshiah, assumed control and management of the plaintiff's properties and affairs and continued in such management until the plaintiff attained majority in December, 1937. On 21st September, 1928, he executed the note Ex. D -4, for Rs. 5,725 -5 -7 as guardian and natural father of the plaintiff in renewal of the previous note of Srikrishnamma, and Ex. D -4 was in turn renewed by Ex. D -3, dated 19th September, 1931, which was for a sum of Rs. 7,845 -14 -1 then found to be due.

(3.) ALL the terms of this document have been agreed to each in pursuance of the other. Therefore no one has any right whatever to separate the terms.