PALLAMREDDI AUDEMMA Vs. PALLAMREDDI VARADAREDDY AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of a suit for maintenance filed on 5th December, 1940 by the appellant in A.S. No. 262 of 1945, against her. step -son who is the appellant in A.S. No. 393 of 1945, and his paternal grand -mother who was the second defendant in the suit. The plaintiff asked for future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 720 per year, arrears of maintenance at the same rate restricted however to the consolidated amount of Rs. 4,000 and a provision for expenses of plgrimage estimated at Rs. 280. She also alleged that some of her jewels valued at Rs. 1,500 were with the defendants, and she prayed for their delivery or payment of their value. The learned Subordinate Judge of Nellore who tried the suit decreed the plaintiff's claim for maintenance at Rs. 360 per annum. He decreed arrears at the same rate but limited to three years prior to the suit. The claim for jewels or their value was negatived. Rs. 280 were directed to be paid to the plaintiff towards expenses of pilgrimage. The amounts decreed to the plaintiff were charged on items 15 to 76 of the plaint A Schedule.

(2.) IN her appeal the plaintiff seeks enhancement of the rate of maintenance and also prays for a decree for Rs. 4,000 towards arrears. A direction is also sought as to her right of residence. The correctness of the decree granted by the Court below as to costs is questioned as also its finding as regards the jewels. In the appeal filed by the step -son (first defendant) it is argued that the plaintiff is not entitled to any maintenance at all as her claim was settled in 1913, that in any event the rate of maintenance should be reduced and the decree as to arrears vacated, that the charge should not have been imposed on what is described as almost the entire Immovable property owned by the first defendant and that it should be confined to a reasonable portion of the property.

(3.) THE learned Subordinate Judge finds that the extent of the properties owned by the first defendant on the date of suit is 44 acres of wet land and 20 acres of dry land including what was got from Chennuri Varadareddi and what the first defendant subsequently acquired. On the basis of certain leases exhibited in the case the learned Subordinate Judge estimates the income of each acre of wet land at half a putty and calculating at the rate of Rs. 65 a putty he assesses the annual income from the wet lands at Rs. 1,430 out of which he states that " the plaintiff's husband's share if he were alive on the date of the suit would be one half i.e., Rs. 715 "; but as the first defendant has to support his mother also the learned Subordinate Judge takes one half of Rs. 715 rounded off at Rs. 360 per annum and adopts this as the proper rate of maintenance awardable to the plaintiff. The income from the dry lands is left out of account as this is held to be just sufficient to pay the taxes on the entire lands dry and wet.