VALLURI RAMANAMMA Vs. MARINA VIRANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In 1916 the appellant was entitled to certain immoveable properties of considerable value, which had devolved upon her as her mother's stridhan. They were withheld from her by her brother, who was apparently a man of position and influence. Attempts had been made to settle the claim, but nothing was effected, and the period of limitation was approaching. It was accordingly decided that a suit must be instituted. The appellant was then twenty-one years of age and her husband, Pattabhiramaya, was twenty-three or twenty-four. His father, Sattayya, was elderly and in bad health, and was not prepared to take an active part in the litigation. Under these circumstances it was thought desirable to secure the assistance of the respondent, the brother-in-law of the appellant's husband, who was an older and more experienced man, and of considerable wealth, He was quite willing to assist gratuitously, but it was considered advisable that he should have a personal stake in the litigation and be legally bound to an active co-operation.

(2.) Accordingly on August 25,1916, a document was drawn up in two parts, by the terms of which the respondent was to contribute one-quarter of the costs of the litigation, and, in the event of failure, to pay one-quarter of any costs that might be awarded to the other side: and in return the appellant was to make over to him one-quarter of whatever she might recover. One part was executed by the respondent, and the other by the husband of the appellant in her name. The two documents are exhibits A and A1 in the case.

(3.) The suit was launched, and was eventually successful. The respondent claimed his quarter share of the properties which the appellant recovered. The lady's husband put him in possession of some thirteen acres of land which he agreed to accept as the equivalent of his share, but the transaction was not completed. Quarrels ensued; criminal proceedings were taken with reference to the thirteen acres, which the respondent was not allowed to retain, and the suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the respondent to enforce the agreement.