PATELL THIMMA REDDI Vs. LAKKIREDDIGARI CHINNA RANGA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which the Court is called upon to decide in this case is whether the expenses of a second marriage of a member of a joint family are binding on the family estate.

(2.) The first defendant was married in 1924 and by this wife he had a son. She died and he married again when the son by his first wife was about 7 years of age. For the expenses of the second marriage, he borrowed money and in order to repay the debt he alienated property belonging to himself and his two younger brothers, with whom he was joint. The youngest brother challenged the validity of the alienation. The trial Court (the Court of the District Munsiff of Gooty) and the first appellate Court (the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Anantapur) held that the alienation was not binding on the shares of the younger brothers. The alienee now asks for the decision of this Court.

(3.) In Kameswara Sastriv. Veeracharlu , a Bench of this Court held that marriage was one of the necessary samskaras or religious rites and that the expenses of the marriage of a coparcener constituted a legal necessity. It mattered not whether the family were Sudras or of one of the twice-born classes. The necessity was justified as an alienation by the manager, not in the sense that it was absolutely indispensable, but according to Hindu ideas it would be regarded as reasonableand proper. This decision related to a first marriage.