RUNKANA RAMAKRISHNA RAO Vs. RUNKANA VENKATARATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the first defendant in a suit for recovery of money filed by the first respondent against him and the second respondent.

(2.) The case, in brief, of the first respondent is that she is the widow of Dillirao, who died intestate and issueless in 1972, and that the appellant and the second respondent are brothers of her deceased husband Dillirao. Appellant and the second respondent have four more brothers including Dillirao and three sisters and were possessed of some joint family properties. The Government acquired the land in S.No.683/5 of Balaga Village belonging to the joint family and the entire compensation of Rs.4,28,973-40ps therefor was received by the second respondent with consent of all sharer awardees. As she did not receive any notice in the land acquisition proceedings, she was not aware of the said proceedings and the payment of compensation therein to the second respondent and came to know about the said proceedings and the second respondent receiving the amount of compensation on behalf of all the sharers, only in August 1985 and so she got issued a registered notice dated 20-8-1985 to the second respondent calling upon him to pay 10/63rd share of compensation to her. Second respondent sent a reply alleging that no compensation was received by him towards the share of her husband Dillirao and the person who received the share of her husband only has to pay that amount to her. Thereupon, she got issued a notice dated 7-11-1985 to the appellant, as she came to know that the second respondent paid her husband's share of the amount to the appellant on the basis of a Will said to have been executed by her husband in his favour, for which the appellant sent a reply dated 18-11-1985 with untenable allegations. The allegation therein that she was divorced by Dillirao in 1962 is not true. There was no partition between her father-in-law and his sons. Hence, she is entitled to a decree for recovery of her share i.e. Rs.58,091-01ps. with subsequent interest from the appellant and the second respondent.

(3.) Appellant filed his written statement admitting his relationship between him and the respondents and contending that as there were disputes between the first respondent and her husband Dillirao, Dillirao divorced her prior to 1962 and thereafter she was living at her parents place, which is at a distance of about 20 Kms from Srikakulam, and that Dillirao was living alone, and was taking shelter in his (appellant's) house and that there was an oral partition in about 1970 among all the brothers including Dillirao, and that Dillirao in order to discharge the debts contracted to by him, and as he (appellant) was looking after his welfare, Dillirao through the Will dated 10-8-1972 bequeathed all his properties to him and so first respondent is not entitled to seek recovery of any amount from him.