VADDAPARTI SOORAYYA Vs. VODOORI SOORANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff and his brothers Mangayya and Kondayya were members of an undivided Hindu family and owned considerable properties, among others certain karnam mirasi inams. Mangayya had two sons, Gavvaraju who died in 1904 and another Raju who died in 1920. At a partition between the three brothers a major portion of the property was divided but the said inams and some jeroyati lands were kept undivided. It appears that the office of the karnam was held by Mangayya as the eldest member of the family. But even during his lifetime the said office appears to have been held by his elder son Gavvaraju till 1904 and thereafter by his younger son Raju and the Government enfranchised the service inams in favour of the said Raju. One Venkataramanamurthi, the son of Kondayya, filed a suit, O.S. No. 39 of 1916, on the file of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Cocanada for a partition of the said karnam service inam lands and other property which were not divided as aforesaid on the ground that the said properties formed part of the joint family properties and he was entitled to a third share therein. The present plaintiff as defendant 2 therein supported the said Venkataramanamurthi. Mangayya and his son Raju resisted the claim alleging that the said property having been enfranchised in the name of Raju formed the separate property of Raju and not joint family property capable of division between the three branches of the family.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge of Cocanada upheld the defence and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. But on appeal the High Court held that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that the said property belonged only to Mangayya's branch but it was the common property of all the three branches capable of division among them and reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge and remanded the suit for disposal in the light of those observations. This was on 4 February 1918. On 10 March 1919 the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada passed a preliminary decree giving a third share to the plaintiff. Against that decision an appeal was preferred by Raju to which the present plaintiff as defendant 2 in that litigation was also a party. Pending the appeal Mangayya and Raju entered into a compromise with Venkataramanamurthi in and by which they agreed to give certain properties for his third share. One of the terms of the compromise was that the appeal should be withdrawn and the suit should be dismissed. The result of this arrangement was that Mangayya and Raju accepted the decision of the High Court that the property was capable of division among all the three branches. When the said Venkataramanamurthi applied for withdrawal of the suit, the present plaintiff, who was defendant 2 in that suit as already stated, wanted to be made a party plaintiff, but the learned Subordinate Judge of Cocanada declined to accede to his request and dismissed his application and allowed the suit to be dismissed. There was an appeal against that order. Pending this appeal Mangayya entered into a compromise, Raju having died in the meanwhile, with the present plaintiff in and by which six items of property, among which was the suit property called Garuvu Manyam, which comprised two survey Nos. 26 and 27 measuring 3 acres 95 cents and 7 acres and 11 cents respectively, were agreed to be given to the plaintiff for his share; the terms of the compromise were embodied in a document Ex. E-2 in the case. The compromise provides that Mangayya should put all the items in possession of the present plaintiff together with the crops thereon. The razinamah was dated 18 October 1920. In pursuance of the razinamah a compromise decree Ex. E was passed and Clause (a) of the said decree runs as follows: (a) that for the share of defendant 2 (appellant) defendant 1 (respondent 2) shall put defendant 2 (appellant) now alone in possession of the property mentioned in the schedule herein below together with the crop thereon out of the properties mentioned in the plaint schedule and shall also get entries made in the accounts.

(3.) It will be necessary to mention that, while the partition litigation was pending, Mangayya as the guardian of Raju gave a lease to defendant, of all the six items which included the Garuvu Manyam on a rental of Rs. 900. The lease is dated 15 April 1919. It was to run for three years. Raju died as already stated on 6 April 1920 and on 4 June 1920 defendant 1 executed a letter Ex. 0, agreeing to pay rent to Mangayya and thus attorned to him. In pursuance of the razinamah decree the present plaintiff appears to have applied for delivery of possession of the properties. Ex. A-1, dated 21 November 1921, purports to be a copy of the delivery receipt which mentioned that there were paddy heaps on Garuvu Manyam and that they were delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case now is that in spite of his having taken delivery, the defendants have unlawfully and stealthily thrashed the crop and removed the grain on 16 March 1922 and that its value will be Rs. 1,300, The plaintiff has now brought the present suit out of which this second appeal arises for recovery of the sum of Rs. 1,300, the value of the crop alleged to have been stolen by defendant 1, and also for the recovery of Rs. 330 due for arrears of rent for fasli 1320 by defendant 1 under the lease Ex. B executed by him in favour of Mangayya as guardian of Raju aforesaid. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiff to both the land and the crop and pleaded that the delivery was not binding on them, that the compromise decree between the present plaintiff and Mangayya was passed in the absence of the legal representative of Raju who was his widow Sri-devamma and was not binding on her, that defendant 1 attorned to the said Sri-devamma and paid her the rent for subsequent faslis and that the plaintiff has no right to demand any portion of the suit amount from them.