JALDU ANANTHA RAGHURAMA ARYA Vs. JALDU BAPANNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the 1st respondent in the Court of the District Munsif of Masulipatam for dissolution of partnership, for accounts and other incidental reliefs. This appeal concerns a timber business of one Jaldu Venkata Subbarao of Masulipatam who executed a will on 20-6-1942. He died on 22-6-1942 leaving behind him his widow and considerable assets including the timber business in dispute. By and under the terms of the will he made certain bequests in favour of his near relations and faithful servants. The decision of this appeal turns mainly on the relevant clauses of the testament. It is useful to set out the relevant clauses of the will- "I have appointed three individuals mentioned herein as executors arid trustees of my estate after my death -- Thatiparti Nagapotharao, Jaldu Manikyalarao, Pulaparti Viswanadhani. It is provided that at my death all my estate shall vest in the three individuals mentioned herein who shall act according to the provisions mentioned in the wilt ....... It is provided that from Chaitra Sudha Panchame of year Swablianu separate accounts shall be maintained and in the timber shop at Masulipatam 1/4th share wilt be allotted to Dintakurti Satyanarayanamurthy and he should improve business and continue it protecting my adopted son till lie becomes a major. Another 1/4th share will be set apart and if the executors are willing they would give it to the following persons -- Kantheti Narasimharao, Jaldu Bapannarao, Kantheti Satyanarayanamurthy." Immediately after his death the property of the testator became the subject-matter of litigation. The genuineness of the will was attacked by his widow as well as the 4th defendant in two separate suits, but it is not necessary to give the details. Ultimately, the validity of the will seems to have been upheld, but it is not necessary to advert to it at any length here. The plaintiff who is no other than the nephew of the testator being a son of one of the brothers instituted the present suit for the reliefs mentioned above as he was not given his due share of the income in the said business. The three executors were impleaded as defendants 1 to 3. The adopted son was added as the 8th defendant who is the appellant before us. It is not necessary for us to refer to the array of the other parties.

(2.) By opening fresh accounts, and by acting otherwise, the executor implemented sonic of the terms of the will. On account of disputes amongst the executors inter se, the business seems to have been suspended some time later, but one of the legatees, namely, Dintakurti Satyanarayana who was impleaded as 6th defendant in the suit resumed the business some time in the year 1946. In such a situation, the plaintiff brought the present suit praying for dissolution of partnership business and for accounts.

(3.) The answer of defendants 1 and 2 i.e., two of the executors was that the gift to the plaintiff and the defendants 4 and 5 did not consist of any share of the corpus but only a share in the profits, that as the plaintiff and defendants 4 and 5 were not settled in life the testator had desired that ell information regarding the legacy in their favour should be withheld from them and that after the testators death the executors agreed to give the plaintiff and defendants 4 and 5 a 1/4th share in the profits and fresh accounts were accordingly opened. But the executors deferred their payment of the share of profits for some reasons which need not be detailed here.