NEELISETTI RAMAIAH Vs. KIDAMBI RATNAMACHARYULU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery by way of contribution Rs, 624. 33 from the first respondent and Rs. 405.16 from respondents 2 and 3 by sale of properties in possession of the respondents. The properties described in the plaint schedules A, B and C. originally belonged to one Nelanutala Nagayya. One Ansuyamma filed a maintenance suit O.S. 412/27 on the file of DMC Tenali for maintenance and obtained a decree against her husband Nagayya and others creating a charge against the properties in possession of the various defendants to that suit for due payment of maintenance decree in her favour. The properties described in plaint schedules A, B & C, were items 10, 11 and 12 of the plaint schedule to the maintenance suit and those properties belonged to Nagayya. Ansuyamma was able to realise her maintenance amount from the various judgment debtors in proportion of their properties. All the judgment debtors except Nagayya, paid off their quota of maintenance to the decree holder. He died long back and before his death had alienated several of his properties including the properties charged for maintenance due to Anusyamma. The properties upon which charge has been created are now in possession of plaintiff and defendants. The properties are all of equal fertility and the ratio in which they are liable to bear the maintenance is 188: 122; 89. The decree holder sought execution only against the properties in possession of the plaintiff and realised various amounts from him alone. Hence this suit for contribution by the plaintiff.

(2.) The 1st defendant filed a written statement and disputed his liability to pay any contribution to the plaintiff

(3.) Defendants 2 and 3 filed written statement raising the plea that the plaintiff has to establish the identity of the properties that were charged under the maintenance and the land that is now in possession of defendants 2 and 3. They did not admit the payments pleaded by the plaintiff towards the decree. They also did not admit that the charged properties are of equal value. They denied the claim of the plaintiff for any contribution much less the amount claimed by him. They also disputed the correctness of the schedules. A, B, and C filed by the plaintiff.