AKOLLA SURYANARAYANA RAO Vs. DWARAPUDI BASIVIREDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit to recover Rs. 35,776-4-9 on the plea that the mortgages on the properties cited in Schedule A of the plaint executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendants 5 to 7, as well as the attachment by defendant 8 and Court purchases by defendants 9 and 10 are subject to the first charge created in favour of plaintiff by the family partition deed of 9 January 1920, Ex. O.

(2.) This family derives from one Basivireddi, who died in 1915. He was a rich man and his son-in-law, Venkayya, the father of the plaintiff, left considerable sums in his hands, which he acknowledged by a pro-note. After his death, the estate was in the hands of a receiver who renewed the note. This is the basis of the plaintiff's claim and the reality of the debt is not disputed. Issue 1 as to its validity was found in the affirmative by the lower Court and that finding stands.

(3.) The question for our determination is whether this debt was secured in 1920 when the members of Basivireddy's family, who were involved in a partition suit, came to a compromise which was embodied in a decree [see order at foot of compromise Ex. O (p. 194). The actual decree is not exhibited but is admitted].