BRAHMAROUTHU MAHALAKSHMAMMA Vs. MATTAPALLI CHALAMAYYA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise from a decree of the lower appellate Court whereby the claim to recover Rs. 932-13-3 from five persons has been partly allowed to the extent of Rs. 533-10-3 against the second defendant alone, am the decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit reversed. The defendant held liable has appealed and so has the plaintiff for the amount that has been disallowed.

(2.) The following pedigree would be helpful in understanding the case:

(3.) It is admitted that Suramma, the widow of Subbarayudu, filed O.S. No. 217/1915 to recover maintenance against Kamanna, Nagaraju and two others, which was allowed, and the decree created a charge for her past ami future maintenance over some properties. The next set of important facts in the case is that Nagaraju and Kondayya mortgaged in favour of one Krishnamurthi certain property, a part of which was charged with payment of the maintenance; there was a partition between the mortgagee and hit brother Raja Krishnaji, in which the mortgaged property was allotted to the brother, who sued on the mortgage bond, obtained a decree and purchased the property at the Court sale held on December 16, 1942. The purchaser did obtain possession and on February 9, 1943, sold the property to Suryakantamma, who was the plaintiff's wife and has since died issue-less. Defend ants Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit, in which the appeals arise, are the adopted son and the widow of the vendor. I must now refer to Suramma's execution petition No. 299 of 1944 wherein the properties charged with payment of maintenance were put to sale and purchased by Malipeddi Venkatramanna on June 26, 1945. It appears that ac. 1-29 out of the land purchased from Raja Krisnaji was included in the property sold to Venkatramanna. In order to save the aforesaid property, the plaintiff as heir to his wife, instituted O.S. No. 248/45 against Venkatramanna, Suramma, as well as against defendants Nos. 3 to 5 to the present suit, but later he entered into a compromise whereby he got release of land including his own ac. 1-29 by paying Rs. 533-10-3 and Rs. 299-9-9 as costs of the action.