AREKUTI SITHAYYA Vs. MUNNANGI CHINA VENKATA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fourth defendant is the appellant in this Second Appeal, which arises out of a suit filed by the first respondent for the administration of the estate of one Kottamasu Subbarao. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal, the Subordinate Judge passed a preliminary decree for the administration of the estate.

(2.) The facts which are material for the purpose of this appeal may be briefly stated. Subbarao executed a promissory note in favour of the first respondent on the 5th October, 1953 for a sum of Rs. 615. He died intestate on the 1st April, 1955, leaving behind him his widow, the first defendant, and his two daughters, defendants 2 and 3. After the death of Subbarao, the first defendant renewed the promissory note executed by her deceased husband on the 25th September, 1956, for a sum to Rs. 779-10-2. While so, the fourth defendant obtained an ex parte decree against the estate of the deceased Subbarao, in O.3. No. 576 of 1956 against defendants 1 to 3. He brought the ' B ' schedule properties to sale in execution of the decree. The execution petition stood posted to the 10th June, 1957.

(3.) Defendants 1 to 3, i.e., the widow and daughters of the deceased Subbarao, did not contest the suit. The fourth defendant pleaded inter alia that the first defendant filed I.P. No. 12 of 1957, that she was adjudged insolvent but that subsequently the adjudication was annulled. He contended that the debt claimed by the plaintiff as well as the debts shown in the plaint ' A ' schedule were all bogus ; that the estate of Subbarao was sufficient to discharge the real debts and that the plaintiff filed the suit in collusion with defendants 1 to 3 with a view to avoid the sale of the properties and defraud him.