PACHIGOLLA VENKATARAO AND OTHERS Vs. PALEPU VENKATESWARARAO AND OTHERS
LAWS(APH)-1955-8-46
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 26,1955

Pachigolla Venkatarao And Others Appellant
VERSUS
Palepu Venkateswararao And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KRISHANAMURTHI AYYAR V. KRISHNAMURTHI AYYAR [REFERRED TO]
BALAKRISHNA MOTIRAM V. UTTAR DEV [REFERRED TO]
BABUBHAI GIRDHARLAL V. UJAMLAL HARGOVANDAS [REFERRED TO]
RAJU V. NAGAMMA [REFERRED TO]
VENKATARAMYYA V. SESHAMMA [REFERRED TO]
VYTHIANATHA V. VARADARAJA [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVAS KRISHNARAO KANGO VS. NARAYAN DEVJI KANGO [REFERRED TO]
APPALASWAMI VS. SURYANARAYANAMURTI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

SATYANARAYANA RAO, J. - (1.)The plaintiffs, whose suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule mentioned house after setting aside the alienation made by their father in favour of defendant 3's husband, Palepu Subbarao, was dismissed, are the appellants in this appeal.
(2.)One Pachigolla Venkataswami had three sons, Ramaiah, Subbarao and Veeraraghavaiah. He acquired considerable movable and immovable properties, in Bezwada and carried on business there. He died on 20-9-1896. After his death the business, started in the name of the father, was continued by the sons and at that time Viraraghavaiah was a minor. Ramaiah and Subbarao carried on business under different names after the death of the father. There was a business in the names of Ramaiah and Godavarti Venkataratnam and yet another in the name of Ramaiah jointly with Parepalli Purushottam and others.
On 13-8-1904, even during the minority of Veeraraghavaiah,, by reason of misunderstandings that arose between the members of the family, they agreed to partition their joint family properties with the help of mediators, and in that partition the minor Veeraraghavaiah was represented by their mother Pullamma.

All the properties including the businesses were subject-matter of the partition and the property allotted to Ramaiah was described in Sen. A attached to the deed of partition, Ex. B-6. The share allotted to Subbarao was mentioned in Sch. B and the share allotted to Viraraghavaiah was mentioned in Sch. O. For the purposes of the partition, the entire properties of the joint family, movable and immovable, gold and silver articles, brass, utensils and furniture, were valued at Rs. 24,978-5-0 and each of the sharers was allotted property of the value of Rs. 8,042-12-4 after making due adjustments regarding the excess in each share.

(3.)Ramaiah married as his first wife the daughter of one Thavva Venkatanarasimham, a merchant of Bezwada, and after her death he married the third daughter of the said Thavva Venkatanarasimham. It is in evidence that Ramaiah before his death, which occurred on 5-2-1919, purchased some immovable properties which he had acquired under the partition deed, Ex. B-6. He also lent on mortgages as well as on promissory notes and acquired considerable fortune by his ability, skill and labour.
Whether he continued the business which was allotted to him under the partition deed and whether he carried on any other business is a matter on which there is dispute but an analysis of the documentary evidence filed in the case reveals that the aggregate of the purchases of the immovable properties made by him after the partition was of the value of Rs. 6,025/-, while he sold two items of property allotted to him in the partition of the total value of Rs. 1900/-. Thus the net amount of purchases made was Rs. 4,125/-.

The total of the amounts advanced under the mortgages, twenty-one in number, of which there is evidence on record, was Rs. 12,937/-, i.e. between. 1904 to 1911, advance on mortgages was Rs. 2620/- and between 1912 to 1918 it was RR. 10,317/-. There were also certain decrees with show that he was also lending on promissory notes. The decree in O. S. No. 787 of 1912 was for Rs. 2499-3-9 and for costs (Ex-A-58); the decree in O. S. No. 101 of 1918 was for Rs. 1186-8-0 and for costs (Ex. A-57) and the decree in O. S. No. 552 of 1914 was for a sum of Rs. 2000/- which was referred to in a later document (will).

The suit property was acquired by him under a deed of exchange, Ex. B-1 dated 10-8-1918. Thereunder he gave a house which he purchased under Ex. A-10 dated 28-6-1911 in full discharge of a mortgage debt of Rs. 230/- with interest at Rs. 2/- per cent per mensem under the mortgage deed Ex. A-7, of 30-10-1905. and a sum of Rs. 2,100/- was paid in cash. The house given in exchange was valued at Rs. 850/-. So the consideration in all amounted to Rs. 2950/-.

;


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