THADAVARTHI BAPAYYA Vs. MYNENI PUNDARIKAKSHAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two second appeals arise out of two connected suits tried by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali. As the parties were differently arrayed in the suits it will be convenient to refer to them according to their description in the cause-title of the main suit, O.S. No. 61 of 1940, which was brought for possession with mesne profits of certain lands of the plaintiff sold during his minority by his natural father acting as his guardian. The first defendant was the vendee and defendants 2 to 5 are his sons.

(2.) The plaintiff's adoptive father, Chelamayya Chowdari, carried on dealings with the first defendant a money lender, and for the amount due in respect of such dealings executed a promissory note (Ex. D-7) for Rs. 1,465-3-5 on 5 June, 1923. He died in January, 1925, leaving him surviving his widow Srikrishnamma, whom he had authorised to make an adoption, and she accordingly adopted her sister's son, the plaintiff, who was then a minor. On 16 April, 1925, she executed for herself and on behalf of her son as his guardian a promissory note for Rs. 4,540-6-8 in favour of the first defendant. The note (Ex. D-6) recited that a sum of Rs. 2,480-6-8 was due in respect of her husband's dealings including the principal and interest due under Ex. D-7 and the balance Rs. 2,060 was advanced in cash to her on that day. The total amount was to carry interest at 12 per cent, per annum. The purpose for which Rs. 2,060 was borrowed by her was not mentioned in the note. This note was renewed by her on 6 April, 1928, by the execution of another note, Ex. D-5, for Rs. 5,416-5-11 being the principal and interest due under the previous note Ex. D-6. Soon after, she died in June, 1928, and her sister's husband and natural father of the plaintiff, China Seshiah, assumed control and management of the plaintiff's properties and affairs and continued in such management until the plaintiff attained majority in December, 1937. On 21 September, 1928, he executed the note Ex. D-4, for Rs. 5,725-5-7 as guardian and natural father of the plaintiff in renewal of the previous note of Srikrishnamma, and Ex. D-4 was in turn renewed by Ex. D-3, dated 19 September, 1931, which was for a sum of Rs. 7,845-14-1 then found to be due.

(3.) As the debt had remained unpaid for a long time the first defendant began to press for payment and, as a result, the sale now impugned was arranged with a view to discharge the debt. An agreement was accordingly entered into on 24 October, 1933, between the first defendant and China Seshayya purporting to act as the guardian of the plaintiff, providing that the lands now in question, 9 acres 11 cents in extent, should be conveyed to the first defendant for Rs. 9,000 out of the sum of Rs. 9,883-3-0 found to be due that date, and for the balance Rs. 883-3-0 a promissory note should be given. Possession of the lands was delivered immediately in pursuance of the agreement, but the conveyance and the promissory note were executed on 17 August, 1934, the parties in the meanwhile having taken legal advice from a leading lawyer at Bapatla who settled the draft of the deed of conveyance. As this deed, marked as D-1, has been the subject of much argument before us, it is necessary to set out the relevant portions which have been officially translated as follows: Deed of sale of immoveable property for Rs. 9,000 . Under the last promissory note, dated 19 September, 1931, minor Pundarikakshayya became indebted to you in a sum of Rs. 9,883-3-0 till 24 October, 1933, so you have been pressing us to discharge the said debt. Thereupon we met, with disputes myself contending to the effect that the amount of the principal and the interest due in regard to the amount borrowed in cash by Srikrishnamma Garu on behalf of the minor is not binding on the minor and yourself contending that the minor is liable to discharge the entire debt inasmuch as Srikrishnamma Garu borrowed the said amount in cash for effecting repairs to the lands of the minor and for the expenses of the family of the minor. In these circumstances as we thought that it is not fair to enter into litigation and put ourselves to expense and trouble, as the minor is not a very rich man and as the prices of lands have fallen on account of economic depression and in accordance with the advice of some mediators, yourself and myself on behalf of the minor have agreed as follows : (1) As the debt was contracted by the father and the minor is liable in all respects to discharge the debt of Rs. 4,776, the same should be fully credited by you. (2) As regards the debts contracted by the mother on behalf of the minor, you should not compel the minor to the effect that he should discharge the same; as consideration herefor-- (1) The land of the extent of 9 acres 11 cents belonging to the minor and described in the schedule, of the value of Rs. 3,644 according to the prevailing market value at the rate of Rs. 400 per acre, should be sold to you on 24 October, 1933, for a sum of Rs. 9,000 and the (said sale) consideration of Rs. 9,000 should be credited towards the promissory note, dated 19 September, 1931--having agreed as above the said land has been sold to you on behalf of the minor. (2) The said land has been delivered possession of to you on 24 October, 1933, itself. (3) The sum of Rs. 883-3-0 has been included in the promissory note executed this day in your favour on behalf of the minor.