VEGUNTA HANUMAYYA Vs. RAJAH VENKATA NARASIMHA APPARAO BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) as evidenced by Ex. A. 6. After a further renewal for a sum of Rs. 40, 286-8-5 in 1949 (Ex. A. 7) and payment of Rs. 3,000 as borne out by Ex. A. 8 dated 1-11-1951, the suit pronote was executed on 22-9-1962 for a sum of Rs. 46,846. Interest stipulated this time was at the rate of 12 percent per annum compound, as against the previous usual rate of 7 1/2 per cent per annum compound. However, on 1-3-1953 the 1st defendant persuaded the plaintiff into an agreement to the effect that on payment of the amount due under the suit pronote with interest at 9 percent on or before 1-3-1953, the entire debt shall stand discharged. The condition stipulated could not, however, be fulfilled. Then, on 19-9-1955 the 1st defendant paid a sum of Rs. 5 towards interest and gave a letter to the plaintiff acknowledging his liability under the pronote. As no further payment was made, the suit was brought against him in 1956. Building this time, the status of the 1st defendants family had already undergone a through change. At the time of the original debt, the 1st defendant was the karta of the joint Hindu family of which defendants 1, 2, and 3 were members. Defendant 2 got a registered notice issued on 30-6-1941 to the 1st defendant indicating his unequivocal intention of separate himself form the joint Hindu family. he demanded partition of the joint family properties forthwith. The important items of family properties were in fact divided and with the help of a lawyer a registered partition deed was executed on 18-7-1942. This partition deed embodies the entire arrangement with regard to the allotment of various properties making a provision as well for discharge of the family debts. In addition to the properties which duly fell to his share the father was allotted further properties mentioned in Part II of Schedule A properties ear marked for discharging the family debts. The total extent of family debts shown was Rs. 5, 70, 000. The properties earmarked for the purpose comprised valuable lands in Krishna, West Godavari and Visakhapatnam districts. The 2nd defendant, after a second thought, came to the conclusion that the properties earmarked actually exceed far in value the total extent of the family debts. He further found that the provision made for the unmarried daughter in the partition deed as also that made for certain alienations, prejudicially affected his interest. he therefore, brought a suit, in C. S. No. 210 and 1942, for re-opening the partition on the Original Side of the Madras High Court alleging inter alia that the properties allotted to the father and earmarked for payment of debts were not less than Rs. 9 lakhs in value and thus exceeded considerably the extent of debts due. The suit was eventually decreed. a preliminary decree was decreed was drawn. Both 2nd defendant and defendants 1 and 3 preferred their appeals O. S. A Nos. 2 and 11 of 1944. These appeals finally ended in a compromise decree. Ex. B-20 is a copy of the compromise decree. The effect of the compromise decree inter alia was that the debts mentioned in the list Ex. B-21 aggregating to Rs. 5,70,000 were confirmed as debts payable by the joint family at the time of its partition and defendants 1 to 3 were declared entitled in Part II of Schedule A of the partition deed to equal shares in what was found to be over and above the value of Rs. 5,70,000 and the floating charge in Sobhanachala Pictures. The share of charge in Sobhanachala Pictures. The share of the 2nd defendant in the excess so determined in fact was found to be of the value of Rs. 1,50,000. Towards this excess share, the given certain properties from out of part II of A Schedule to the partition deed. The original partition of all the partible properties as in the partition deed was given effect to immediately after the deed and prior to the suit of 2nd defendant, itself. In pursuance of that partition, the villages were separately registered in the names of the father and sons under the sanction of the district collectors of, Krishna and West Godavari etc., thereafter all the defendants started separately managing their properties. Such a partition made under a formal registered deed and made under a formal registered deed and implemented where ever necessary under the authority of the District Collectors could not remain a secret. Similarly , the arrangements with regard to payment of pre-partition debts as made in the deed could not remain a sealed book to the creditors who must be anxious to get their money. The plaintiff even after this was content with obtaining renewals from defendant only in 1946, 1949 and 1952. After abolition of estates, the Government has deposited some amounts in the Estates Abolition tribunal towards compensation in respect of certain villages, the plaintiff filed a claim petition in O. P. No. 607/1953. of course his application was in relation to the shares of all the defendants. But he pressed his claim only against the share of the 1st defendant. He got a sum of Rs. 25,792-10-7. thereafter he was content with an endorsement on the suit pronote made by the 1st defendant alone which was made on 15-9-1954. Even the suit that he brought was against the 1st defendant 2 and 3 were added under the order of the High Court dated 26-2-1960 in C. R. P. No. 1194/1958. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 39,000 even though the original debt was only Rs. 25,000 and a total sum of Rs. 37,792-10-7 was paid towards it. this was due to the fact that interest charged was compound interest and a sufficiently high rate.

(2.) The plaintiff in O. S No. 25/ 1956 Sri Vegunta Hanumayya is an old man in his nineties. He had originally advanced a sum of Rs. 10,000 to the 1st defendant and got a pronote in 1940. The next pronote that he got executed is Ex. A. 29 dated 2-11-1944 and that for a sum of Rs. 14,000. The 1st defendant renewed this pronote first on 1-11-1947, then on 30-10-1950 and again on 29-10-1953. The last mentioned is the suit pronote. The payments made on behalf of the 1st defendant total upto Rs. 145-4-0. the action as laid is for a sum of Rs. 7, 759-12-0.

(3.) The 1st defendant admitted both the pronotes. But he disputed the right of the plaintiff in O. s. 25/1956 to bring a civil action. His contention seems to be that since the plaintiff had approached the Estates, Abolition Tribunal and got the money available, he cannot bring a civil suit. His further contention was that only a sum of Rs. 44,714-7-5 was found to be due by the Tribunal. So then after payment of Rs. 44,714-7-5 was found to be due by the tribunal. So then after payment of Rs. 25,000 and odd, a sum of Rs. 18,921-10-10 only must be payable to the plaintiff . As regards interest, he claims that he is entitled to the benefits under the Usurious Loans Act and also the Agriculturists Relief Act.