BUDHARAJU VENKATA SURYANARAYANA RAJU Vs. MADDUKURI APPARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by defendant No. 1 aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, in O.S. No. 25 of 1961. The plaintiff is the first respondent herein and defendants 2 to 7 are respondents 2 to 7. The plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 11,645-42 of which the principal amount is Rs. 10,000 and the balance interest. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant's father late Bhuddaraju Venkatapathirajugaru, resident of P.E. Chennayapalem of Tuni Division owned vast properties situate in Kondayagudem of Burgampadu taluk in Khammameth District and also other places. He was having absolute confidence and great respect for late Prathivadhibhayankara Parthasarathigaru, the husband of 2nd defendant and the father of defendants 3 to 7. Late Parthasarathi was an advocate who used to conduct suits and attend to several matters of the 1st. defendant's father. The 1st defendant's father also executed a registered Power of Attorney in favour of late Parthasarathi empowering him to attend to cultivation and all other affairs. He was empowered to borrow monies, effect mortgages, file suits, effect sales etc. The 1st defendant's father executed a will on 21st February, 1955 and got it registered. It was provided in the will that the entire property belonging to defendant-1's father, should be under the management of late Parthasarathi till the 1st defendant attains the age of 30 years and that late Parthasarathi should act as the trustee and do the management with full powers, meet the expenses, contract debts and effect sales etc. which he may find necessary during the course of management of the estate. It was further provided in the will that the 1st defendant should not be at liberty to contract any debts.

(2.) The 1st defendant's father died on 28th March, 1955. The late Parthasarathi was borrowing monies, required for the 1st defendant's family and was also repaying the same. The 1st defendant's maternal uncle Gottimukkula Satyanarayanaraju was assisting the late Parthasarathi in the management of the estate of the 1st defendant.

(3.) The late Parthasarathi and Gottimukkula Satyanarayanaraju came to the plaintiff's village and represented to him that a sum of Rs. 10,000 was required for meeting the cultivation expenses of the 1st defendant's lands at Kondayagudem and after making him believe, the said representation, they borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000 in cash from him. As voucher to evidence the debt, the late Parthasarathi also executed on 5th January, 1958 a promissory note which is Exhibit A~3 and agreed to pay interest at the rate of Re. 1 percent per mensem. Late Parthasarathi had also represented to the plaintiff that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,000 was credited in the estate account books of the 1st defendant maintained by the late Parthasarathi. It is further averred that if the amount had not been lent at that time by the plaintiff, it would have resulted in heavy loss to the 1st defendant's estate. Parthasarathi died in February, 1958. After his death, there was no other trustworthy person to manage the entire estate, the 1st defendant executed a trust deed in favour of his father-in-law Chintalapati Buchi Krishnamaraju on 20th March, 1958 appointing him as the trustee to manage his estate in the same manner as the late Parthasarathi. The 1st defendant without raising any objection to the acts which the late Parthasarathi had done, in accordance with the terms of the will, executed by his father, executed the aforesaid trust deed. In spite of repeated demands calling upon to 1st defendant and his trustee to pay the amount due to the plaintiff, no payment has been made. The averments in para. 8 of the plaint are extracted below :- " For the reasons that the suit debt was contracted by late Parthasarathigaru, as trustee to the 1st defendant's estate and as his agent, that he made the plaintiff to believe, that he was doing it in that capacity, that the said amount was utilised for the necessity of the 1st defendant, that late Parthasarathigaru was the only person who was authorised to contract debts that were binding on the 1st defendant's estate, the 1st defendant is liable to pay the total amount due together with interest thereon. In any view, the plaintiff is in every way entitled to recover the amount from the properties of late Paithasarathigaiu which are in the hands of respondents 2 to 7."