BOLLA NARAYANA MURTHY Vs. CANNAMANEEDI MADHAVAYYA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the plaintiff's appeal; it arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land.

(2.) THE first defendant is the elder brother of the second defendant, both are stepbrothers of a man named Ramalingayya, now deceased ; all of them are sons of one Padmanabhudu, who died on 12th June, 1935 ; at that date the second defendant was a minor, he attained majority in 1937. Prior to the father's death, all of them formed an undivided Hindu family owning property and land, approximating to an area of 190 acres, in Manepalli village in the district of East Godavari. In May, 1935, shortly before the father's death, there was a partition in the family, by which about 25 acres of land were allotted to the father, who, by his will dated May, 6,, 1935, left a part of the land allotted to him to his wife for life and after his death to his three sons and the remainder to his daughters. The plaintiff alleges that at the partition in May 1935, the only disruption effected in the family related solely to the father and the only division in the family property was the portion of land allotted to him. It is beyond doubt, however, that at or about the same time there was a partition by which Ramalingayya became separate and took his share in the family property, probably 55 acres, and the remaining no acres were available to the first and second defendants. The defendants' contention is that the whole family was disrupted at the time of the allocation of land to the father and thereafter all of them were disunited; but the second defendant who, at that time, was 16 years of age continued to live with his uterine brother, the first defendant, and their shares in the family property were not divided by metes and bounds since the first defendant looked after both his own and his younger brother's shares, but they have, ever since, May, 1935, remained separate in status. The plaintiff does not concede there was ever a partition between the defendants, but as an alternative to his contention that no disruption in status took place between them, the plaintiff contends further that, even if there was a partition, it was followed by a re -union of the first and second defendants by the year 1937, after which time they were a joint Hindu family of which the karta was the first defendant.

(3.) BY deed dated April 16, 1941, Satyanarayanamurti conveyed to the defendants 16 acres 80 cents out of the lands forming part of his 34 acres 90 cents included in the mortgage deed abovementioned for Rs. 10,000 in consideration of the defendants' paying that entire sum on behalf of Satyanarayanamurti towards the amount due under the mortgage.