PULAVARTY VENKANNA Vs. JUPUDY SARAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following is the pedigree of the parties:

(2.) The plaintiffs and the 1 defendant are members of an undivided family, and the 2nd defendant though born in their family has been adopted by Ayyanna, the son-in-law of Sarayya the grand-father of the 1 and 3 plaintiffs, and has become a member of a separate family. The 3 defendant is the adopted son of the 2nd defendant. It is the plaintiffs case that all the property belonging to their joint family has been already divided among them into four equal shares; and with the exception of the property shown in schedule III, the various members are in possession of the properties separately allotted to them. They pray for a division among themselves of the property which still remains undivided. They further allege that their family is entitled to a half share in the trade carried on at Akkividu by the 2nd defendant who is the active member of the partnership and has all the accounts and properties in his possession. The plaintiffs pray for a dissolution of that partnership and for the recovery of their share in the assets of that firm.

(3.) An objection was taken by the defendants that the suit was bad for misjoinder of distinct causes of action. This issue was argued first before the suit was posted for evidence and it was decided in favour of the plaintiffs on the 14 August 1903. The Judge held that the plaintiffs are entitled to sue for their share of the family property and, also for a dissolution of the partnership in the circumstances of this case and that there is no misjoinder either of causes of action or of parties.