GUDURU RAMARAYUDU Vs. MALLELA MANIKYA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Venkatrayudu who died in 1934, had a large family consisting of the plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3, the defendants 2 and 4, the deceased husband of the 3 defendant and a daughter who was married to the 1 defendant, the appellant in the present case. In 1915, one of the sons of Venkatrayudu, the 4 defendant, became an insolvent and in February, 1919, the Official Receiver in the insolvency sold his i/7 share of the family properties partly to one Sivarama-krishnayya and partly to the appellant. Sivaramakrishnayya purchased the i/jth. share in certain items and the appellant purchased the i/7 share in other items. Together the two of them purchased the whole of the share of the insolvent son.

(2.) In 1922, one of the purchasers Sivaramakrishnayya filed a suit O.S. No. 55 of 1922, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur, in which he prayed for a partition of the share of the insolvent and the allotment of the properties to the two purchasers, namely, Sivaramakrishnayya and the present appellant, after working out the equities between the several parties, or alternatively the plaint prayed for allotment of the proportionate amount of the insolvent's share to the plaintiff, i.e., Sivaramakrishnayya and his coparceners. There was also a prayer for mesne profits. The plaint alleged that the properties purchased in the name of the 1 defendant were purchased for the benefit of his father-in-law's family, but it was also averred that the two purchasers, namely, Sivaramakrishnayya and the appellnt, had together become purchasers of the entire 1/7 share of the insolvent and that the appellant not having joined in instituting the suit as he was colluding with the other defendants had been made a defendant. The appellant filed no written statement but it appears from the judgment that certain of the other defendants representing the family of the appellant's father-in-law did file written statements in which they made no averment regarding the nature of the title acquired by the appellant by reason of his purchase. In the course of the evidence, however, Venkatrayudu, the father-in-law of the appellant, stated in evidence that he did not advance the purchase money to his son-in-law. No issue was framed in the suit regarding the alleged benami character of the purchase by the appellant.

(3.) The suit resulted in a finding that the plaintiff and the appellant were entitled to have a separate allotment of properties by reason of their purchases from the Official Receiver, that the properties so allotted were to be charged with a sum of Us. 1,000 being 1/7 of the amount set apart for the marriages of the daughters of the family and the plaintiffs and the appellant were directed to pay respectively Rs. 475 and Rs. 525 on this account. There were cross-appeals preferred against this decree, the plaintiff's appeal relating to the apportionment of costs between the plaintiff and the 1 defendant and the appeal of the members of the family of the defendant's father-in-law relating to various contentions with which we are not now concerned. The appeal resulted in the confirmation of the trial Court's decree except for slight modifications. There was a second appeal preferred by the members of the appellant's father-in-law's family which again resulted in substantial confirmation of the original decree.