ANKALAMMA Vs. BELLAM CHENCHAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The bond sued on was executed to the father of the 1st plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff s case was that it was assigned to him by the father. After filing the suit, he died and the 2nd plaintiff, is his legal representative. The 1st defendant is the son of the mortgagor. Defendants 1 to 11 are alienees of some of the properties mortgaged. The 12th defendant is the eldest son of the mortgagee. The defendants pleaded that the mortgage bond was discharged by the payment made to one Chinna Narayana Reddi. This Chinna Narayana Reddi was another son of Byreddi Venkuta Reddi, the original mortgagee. In the written statement the case for the defence was that in a partition between the father and the sons, this bond fell to the share of Chinna Narayana Reddi and that after it came to him, there was a complete discharge of the obligation under the bond.

(2.) The District Munsif gave a decree to the plaintiff. In appeal after remand in which the District Judge asked for certain findings upon some subsidiary issues, the Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal finally has come to the conclusion that the payment to Chinna Narayana Reddi discharged the 1st defendant from liability and that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim anything under the bond.

(3.) The facts found are (a) that Venkata Reddi was alive at the time that the alleged payment was made to Chinna Narayana Reddi. Venkata Reddi and this son the 12th defendant were sentenced to transportation? for life somewhere near 1880 and the discharge is alleged to have been in the year 1883. At that time, the father is alleged to have given a power of attorney to a person called Narayana Reddi. (b) It is further found that there was no partition as alleged by the defendants. The District Munsif has stated that there was no allegation that Chinna Narayana Reddi was the manager of the family and that it was not sought to establish it before him. In this Court, an attempt was made both by Messrs. Narasimba-chariar and Radhakrishnayya to show that Chinna Narayana lieddi was actually managing the family affairs. But the circumstances nentioned by the Subordinate Judge negative any such presumption. After the father and the eldest son were convicted and sentenced to transportation for life, apparently every member of the family was endeavouring to get as much family property as possible into his own hands. In these circumstances, it is unlikely that any one of the members was looked up to as the manager of an undivided family.