Decided on November 17,1971



- (1.) Ist defendant in O. S. No. 25 of 1966 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Kurnool, is the appellant. The Ist respondent-plaintiff sued for declaration of his right to receive half or in the ratio of 29:30 in the amount that may be collected by the Ist defendant from the defendants 2 to 12 on the pronote Ex. B-1 executed by one P. Vengal Reddy on 22/07/1961 in favour of the Ist defendant for a sum of Rs.24,000.00-.
(2.) The plaintiff and the Ist defendant are brothers who constituted a Hindu joint family up till 25/01/1957, when they divided. One P. Venkata Ranga Reddy the maternal uncle of the plaintiff and the Ist defendant, was indebted to their family on two promissory notes executed by him for sums of Rs. 12,000.00- and Rs. 11,600.00- on 28-6-1952 and 10-7-1952 respectively in favour of the Sit defendant. The aforesaid Venkata Ranga Reddy was in great financial difficulties. At the time of the partition between the plaintiff and the Ist defendant, according to the plaintiff, the pronote for Rs. 12,000.00- was provisionally allotted to the Ist defendant and the other for a sum of Rs. 11,600.00- was taken provisionally to the plaintiffs half share. According to the plaint case, there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the Sit defendant on the advice of their mother ( P. W. 6 ) and others who were present at the time of the partition, to devide equally the amount that might be collected in future from Venkata Ranga Reddys family in respect of the two aforesaid promissory notes. No amount could be realised from late Venkata Ranga Reddy during his life time; but, however, P. Vengal Reddy, the brother of late Venkata Ranga Reddy, executed Ex. B-1 for a sum of Rs. 24,000.00- in the name of the Ist defendant after giving up the interest. P. Vengal Reddy also died without paying any amount due and payable by him under Ex. B-1. The defendants 2 and 3 have executed a promissory note in favour of the Ist defendant for a sum of Rs. 28,320.00- in respect of which the plaintiff seeks for declaration of his half share.
(3.) The Ist defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff contending inter alia that the division of the promissory notes referred to earlier was not tentative or provisional, but was final and there was no agreement to devide the amount that might be collected from the family of late Venkata Ranga Reddy and Ex. B-1 was executed by Vengal Reddy on account fresh borrowing from him and the plaintiff is not entitled for any share therein. It was further urged that the suit is misconceived and not maintainable.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.