SRIKAKOLAPU SRIRAMULU Vs. SRIKAKOLAPU SITAMAHALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the final decree passed in O.S.No. 247 of 1950 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada. The preliminary decree was passed on 27th November, 1952, for the partition of the plaint A to E schedule properties. A commissioner was appointed to effect a partition of Plaint A schedule properties, and in I.A.No. 1241 of 1960 a decree was passed in Plaintiff's favour in respect of plaint B and C schedule properties. Under the decree the plaintiffs were granted Rs. 2,527-25 towards the value of their share of B schedule properties not produced by the 1st defendant and Rs. 2,000 towards their share of the C schedule properties. In I.A. No. 1242 of 1960 a decree was passed for mesne profits with regard to the A schedule sites, and houses in a sum of Rs. 6,906-4-7. The present appeal is against the decree passed in I.A. No. 1241 of 1960 and I.A. No. 124 of 1960 in O.S. No. 247 of 1950. I shall consider these items seriatim.

(2.) The subordinate Judge held that the total value of the items of B schedule specified in para. 51 of the Commissioner's report was Rs. 5,054-50 that the said items were not produced for partition and the plaintiffs (the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff) were therefore entitled to half the value. The learned Counsel for the appellant 1st defendant has contended that the said amount is erroneous and there should be deduction of an aggregate sum of Rs. 2,069-87 made up of these values. Items produced but refused by the plaintiff. 991-75 Items already delivered but wrongly shown as not delivered. 459.00 Items spoiled. 619.12 Total ...... 2,069-87.

(3.) A memo showing the amounts and the relevant particulars has been filed by the learned Counsel for the 1st defendant appellant a copy of which has been served on the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted that the amounts shown are correct. I have perused the items, and I find that the contention of the 1st defendant has to be upheld and so the aggregate value of these items has to be deducted from 5,054-50.