K N RAMAKRISHNA AIYAR Vs. PARAMESWARA AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appellants were the second and the third defendants in the Court below. The appeal was filed by the first appellant, but as he did not press it the third respondent was made a co-appellant, and he has alone supported it. The suit was filed by the first respondent, who is the father of the second respondent, for partition of the family properties. The first defendant was the father of the appellants and the first respondent, but he died during the pendency of the litigation. The suit was filed on the 1 September, 1919 and on the 31st December, 1926, a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the first respondent. The final decree was passed on the 31 March, 1931, and the appeal is concerned with this decree.

(2.) The first question which arises relates to the provision to be made for the marriage of the sister of the appellants and the first and fourth respondents, the 37 defendant. The learned trial Judge has held that the expenses of this marriage should be borne by the appellants and their brother, the fourth respondent. After the first respondent separated from the family, the family consisted of the father, the appellants and the first respondent. The learned Judge was wrong in ordering the appellants and the fourth respondent to bear the expenses alone and this is properly conceded by the learned Advocate who appears for the first and second respondents. The law was stated by this Court in the case of Subbayya V/s. Ananda Ramayya (1928) 57 M.L.J. 826 : I.L.R. 53 Mad. 84 (F.B.). Moreover there was a provision in the preliminary decree that the first respondent should bear his share of the expenses. The final decree will, therefore, be varied in this respect and the first respondent will bear one-fifth of the expenses of the marriage. It is agreed that on this basis the first and second respondents will be made liable for Rs. 1,000.

(3.) Four other points were then taken, namely : (1) that the appellants are not liable to pay interest on the mesne profits awarded to the first respondent; (2) that the rate of interest fixed, namely, 7 1/2 per cent, is in any event too high; (3) that no allowance has been made for the payment by the appellants of the land revenue; and (4) that the learned trial Judge has calculated the mesne profits at paddy prices higher than those claimed by the first respondent.