CHINNI VEERAIAH CHETTY Vs. MORISETTI LAKSHMIKANTAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for partition of the plaint schedule house into two shares, for separate possession of one share and for an account of the rents collected by the defendant from 11-4-52.

(2.) Issues Nos. 1 and 4 framed by the trial court are as follows :

(3.) This being a second appeal, the finding of the Courts below as to the amounts spent by the defendant for repairs and the amounts paid towards taxes as well as the amount collected by her as rent are not and could not be questioned before me. The only question argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the defendant, who is a co-owners, could not, without the consent of the 1st plaintiff, who was the other co-owner spend any amount for effecting repairs to the house and claim a half share thereof from him. The argument is that one of several co-owners effecting repairs to the joint property cannot claim from the other co-owners any contribution towards the amount thus spent. In support of this proposition, reliance is placed upon the decision in Solaiman v. Jatindra Nath, AIR 1929 Cal 553, where Rankin, C. J. , delivering the judgment of the Court, stated :