GOPALA IYENGAR Vs. VENKATAKRISHNA IYENGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the petitioner in the revision. He executed a promissory-note in favour of one Venkatavaratha Iyengar (defendant s son-in-law) for Rs. 200 on 26th September 1908. Venkatavaratha Iyengar died in May 1909, leaving a widow and two paternal uncles (plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 in this suit). He was 30 years old at his death. Then his widow (defendant s daughter) brought Original Suit No. 292 of 1909, against her husband s paternal uncles (plaintiffs NOS. 1 and 2) for maintenance, evidently on the basis that her husband and his paternal uncles were undivided in interest and that she was entitled to maintenance as the widow of an undivided co-parcener in a joint Hindu family owning joint family property. Though the present plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 (defendants therein) at first contested her claim on the ground that Venkatavaratha Iyengar and themselves did not own any joint family property (See Exhibit D), the present plaintiff afterwards consented to give defendant s daughter (the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 292 of 1909) maintenance as the widow of a person who was a member of a joint family property, the joint family members having consisted of at least himself and the deceased Venkatavaratha Iyengar.

(2.) The present suit was next brought by the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and by the 2nd plaintiff s sons (plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4) for recovery of the promissory-note debt due by the defendant, treating the promissory-note amount as joint family funds which had belonged to the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and their deceased nephew, Venkatavaratha Iyengar and the plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4 and which amount, the plaintiffs (as surviving co-parceners) were entitled for recover. Paragraph No. 8 of the plaint expressly says: "As the suit debt was paid (advanced) from the family property and as the suit promissory-note was executed in the name of the family member viz., the said Venkatavaratha Iyengar, succession certificate is not necessary."

(3.) The defendant, in his written statement (which he has not chosen to print for this Court s perusal), seems to have pleaded: (a) that the promissory-note was altered after he had executed and delivered it to his son-in-law by the insertion of the figures as to rate of interest. (b) that he had re-paid Rs. 125 to his son-in-law by performing some ceremonies at an expense of Rs. 125 at the Son-in-law s request, (c) that the Rs. 200 lent under Exhibit C was his son-in-law s self-acquisition and that, therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to sue thereon. From the written statement, as read out to me by the petitioner s learned Vakil, I was unable to conclude that the defendant contended that the 1st plaintiff and the deceased Venkatavaratha Iyengar did not form a joint Hindu family and all that it seemed to contend on this point was that the money advanced on the promissory-note was the deceased s self-acquisition.