KURAPATI RADHAKRISHNA Vs. KURAPATI SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Rajahmundry modifying the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry in O.S. No. 34 of 1938 on his file.

(2.) The plaintiff and the first defendant are the appellants. They are the sons of one Kurapati Venkataratnam by his second wife. Jaggarao, the father of; the fourth defendant, the second defendant and the third defendant are the sons of the said Venkataratnam by his first wife. Venkataratnam died in 1922. Thereafter Jaggarao and the second defendant managed the properties of the family and also continued the trade. During the course of their management the properties of the family were alienated to various defendants in the present suit. The immovable properties of the family are described in schedules A to F attached to the plaint in the present suit. The A schedule property was sold under Ex. III on the 27 May, 1930, to defendants 5 to 7. The B schedule property was sold on the 13 of August, 1930, under Ex. CC to the eighth defendant. The G schedule lands were sold under Ex. VIII dated the 18 of February, 1930, to the ninth defendant. Item 1 of D schedule was sold on the 23 of March, 1933, to the tenth defendant under Ex. V. Item 2 of the said schedule was sold on the 30 of January, 1935, under Ex. O to the eleventh defendant. The E schedule property was sold to the 12 defendant on the 26 of February, 1935, under Ex. O-i and from the 12 defendant the 13 defendant purchased it, and he was in possession of the said property. In pursuance of the decree in O.S. No. 57 of 1935 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff of Rajahmundry items 2 and 3 of the F schedule were sold in Court auction and were purchased in 1938 during the pendency of the present suit by the 14 defendant. G schedule comprises moveables alleged to belong to the family.

(3.) The plaintiff instituted the present suit on the 1 of April, 1936, for a declaration that the sales in respect of the properties described in schedules A to F attached to the plaint did not bind him and that the properties comprised in schedules A to G should be divided into five equal shares and possession delivered to him of one share. There are also other reliefs in the plaint which are not very material for the purpose of this appeal. The main contention of the plaintiff raised in the plaint was that the alienations in question were made by Jaggarao and the second defendant for discharge of their private debts and therefore were not binding on the family. He also contended that by reason of the proceedings in O.S. No. 63 of 1933, a suit filed by the second defendant as plaintiff in the Court of the District Munsiff of Rajahmundry for partition of the joint family property, there was a disruption of the joint status of the family and such of the alienations as were made after such division did not bind the plaintiff, in any event, as the brothers had no right or authority to alienate the properties purporting to do so as managers of the family. There is also a further allegation that as regards items 2 and 3 of F schedule the decree in O.S. No. 57 of 1935 in pursuance of which they were sold do not bind him or his interest in the said item, as the decree was obtained against defendants 2 and 3 in their individual capacity and was personal to them and that the sale was also affected by the doctrine of lis pendens.