ACHUTA YELLAMANDAIAH Vs. KURAKULAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of an administration suit. A.S. 179/72 is preferred by plaintiffs 1 and 3 to 5. A.S. 752/72 is preferred by defendants 29 to 32.

(2.) One Kuraka Subbarayudu died on 16-3-1968 leaving behind him defendants 1 and 2, his wives and defendants 5 to 9 his sons and daughters. He has left a large estate which is shown in A-schedule property which consists of immovable and B-schedule movable properties. Originally the suit was filed by five plaintiffs who re creditors of Subbarayudu. As the 2nd plaintiff died plaintiffs 6 to 12 were added as his legal representatives. The 1st plaintiff obtained a decree for Rs.6,000.00 and odd and costs on 30-10-1970 under ex. A-1 against Subbarayulu and other defendants and his heirs. Similarly the 3rd plaintiff obtained a decree for Rs. 4,000/ and odd plus costs on 30-8-1968 under Ex. A-18. The 4th plaintiff also obtained similar decree for Rs. 10,223-76 on 30-6-1971 vide Ex. A-14. The 5th plaintiff lent a sum of Rs. 3,000.00 on a promissory note dated 7-7-1967 which has been marked as Ex. A-7. There are two payments made on 4-1-1968 and 7-4-1968 of Rs. 1000.00 each of which have been separately marked as Exs. A-7 (a) and A-7 (b). The plaintiffs claimed that all the properties in A and B schedules are liable to discharge the debts due to them and the other defendants. Originally some of the other creditors were impleaded as defendants but subsequently most of the other creditors got themselves impleaded by filing petitions on their own behalf. By the date of the disposal of the suit there were 75 defendants in the lower court out of which defendants 1 to 9 are the heirs of Subbarayudu while the other defendants are all the creditors and the legal representatives.

(3.) The main contest was raised by the 2nd defendant who happens to be the second wife of late Subbayudu. According to her, items 10 to 17 shown in A-schedule belonged to her as per separate property. She says that she has purchased those properties with her own funds, that she was alone in possession realising the rents, leasing out the lands and paying cist thereof. These properties, therefore cannot be proceeded against for recovery of debts due by Subbarayudu. There are also other defences raised by the 2nd defendant which are here not very relevant but one of the other defences raised by her in the lower court was that the debts claimed by the 5th plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 29 to 32 were barred by time by the date of the preliminary decree tough not by the date of the suit and hence they are not entitled to claim any share out of the assets of Subbarayudu. The other defendants have also pleaded that the debts contracted by Subbaraydu were Avyavaharika and the business debts incurred by Subbarayudu were not binding upon his sons. Item 2 was also claimed to be the self-acquired property by Subbarayudu.