YEDDULA CHINNABBI Vs. YEDDULA VENKATA SUBBAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal brought by the judgment-debtors from an order of the District Court of Cuddapah refusing to scale down the decree in O.S. No. 17 of 1936 on the file of that Court on the ground that the debt due to the respondents is excluded from the purview of the Agriculturists Relief Act by Section 4, Clause (h) thereof.

(2.) The appellants contend that the exemption under that clause does not apply to the respondents as they own "other property," inasmuch as each of them is entitled under the decree in O.S. No. 20 of 1935 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Cuddapah to an allowance of Rs. 10 per mensem for her maintenance. The only question for determination is whether the right to receive this allowance can be regarded as "property".

(3.) The respondents are the daughters by the second wife of one Chinna Venkatasubba Reddi who gave a third share of his properties by his will to his daughter by the first wife, and died intestate in respect of the rest of his properties which were inherited by his third wife who survived him. The devisee brought the O.S. No. 20 of 1935 referred to above for partition and delivery of possession of her third share of the properties against the surviving widow and her daughter, and the respondents were also impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 as being in possession of some of the assets of their father. A decree for partition was duly made and paragraph 6 of that decree provided that: Defendants 3 and 4 by guardian will be given Rs. 240 per annum as maintenance at Rs. 120 each till each of them is married and joins her husband's family, from the date of plaint, that is, 24 July, 1933, in proportionate shares. and liberty was reserved to the parties in paragraph 9 to apply for further directions in the matter. It is now admitted that the first respondent is married and has joined her husband and, for that reason, is no longer entitled to the allowance payable under the decree. As she has not been proved to own any other property, she is clearly entitled to the immunity provided under Section 4(h) of the Act and the appeal must fail so far as she is concerned. The question arises therefore only with reference to the claim of the appellants to have the decree scaled down against the second respondent.