KATTRAGADDA RATHIAH Vs. DEBINENI SANTHAMMA
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
Umamaheswaram, J. -
(1.) THE Plaintiff is the Appellant. He filed a suit for recovery of a sum of money due under a promissory note executed by the 1st Defendant. His case was that the 1st Defendant was appointed as the guardian of D. Chalapathirao under the Lunacy Act and that the 1st Defendant borrowed the amount for performing his obsequies. The 2nd Defendant was impleaded as the widow of Chalapathirao.
In the plaint, he stated that the debt was contracted and spent for the spiritual benefit of late Chalapathirao, the lunatic, and for meeting obsequial expenses and that the debt was consequently binding on his estate. He further stated in paragraph 1 that as the properties belonging to late Chalapathirao were at present in the possession of defendants 1 and 2, they were liable to discharge the suit debt. He prayed for a personal decree against the 1st Defendant and as against the properties belonging to Chalapathirao in the hands of Defendants 1 and 2.
(2.) THE 1st Defendant filed a written statement stating that the amount was borrowed for the obsequies of Chalapati Rao, that the 2nd Defendant requested her to execute the promissory note, that the 2nd Defendant actually received the amount and utilised it for the obsequies. The 2nd Defendant denied that the amount was borrowed for the obsequies, that the income got from Chalapati Rao's properties was large, that there was no necessity for the 1st Defendant to borrow, that the 1st Defendant was liable to render an account for the income realised by her during the management and that no decree should be passed against the estate in her hands. The Plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1. He deposed that the amount was borrowed for the obsequies of 2nd Defendant's husband. He stated that he would be satisfied with a decree against the estate of Chalapatirao, if any, in the hands of Defendants 1 and 2. In cross examination, he made it clear that he did not want a personal decree against the 1st Defendant.
(3.) AN appeal was preferred by the 2nd Defendant to the Subordinate Judge of Tenali. The Subordinate Judge rightly followed the decision in -'Rama Kamath v. C.L. Lobo' : AIR 1943 Mad 265 (A) and held that the 1st Defendant ceased to be the guardian on the death of the lunatic and that the properties in the hands of the 2nd Defendant could not be proceeded against. He, therefore, held that the decree that was passed as against the estate of Chalapathirao in the hands of the second Defendant was wrong, and allowed the appeal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.