That the finding of the lower companyrt regarding the emerald listed as item 51 of the plaint B Sch.
That Mr. N. Venkat Rao, Vakil, be hereby appointed Commissioner for the purpose of taking account and submitting a report as expeditiously as possible after taking of such accounts the outstandings as stated by the arbitrator in Exhibit 113 may be taken by him as showing prima facie a companyrect list of the outstandings and the account books produced and tiled by the parties may be taken as prima facie companyrect accounts.
That an account be taken of the outstandings due to the family as on 6 12 1925 and the plaintiff and defendants 6 and 7 do furnish accounts in respect of the companylections or loans etc.,
on and after that date.
Akulavari house and Challagalla Nagayyas lands be paid by defendants 6 and 7 to plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 with interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum from the dates of the sale deeds.
plaint.
He may take the directions of the Court as and when necessary.
That it is the exclusive property of the plaintiff be and hereby is set aside and that the said item of property be and hereby is declared to belong to the joint family and is divisible and That each party do bear their respective companyts both in the appeal and in the memorandum of cross objections.
On appeal, the High Court modified that preliminary decree and substituted it by the following decree That for the words and figures occurring in Clause 3 of the first paragraph of the decree of the lower Court namely on 6 12 1925, the following words and figures namely on 30 9 1922 be and here by are substituted That the finding of the lower Court regarding the properties mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint viz.
Item 1 of the plaint A 1 Schedule be and hereby are substituted.
42550/10/1 which resulted after the accounts which the appellant had to render on behalf of his branch of the family.
The Commissioner will take into account the memo, dated 30 11 1942, filed by both parties into Court.
A and A 1 Schedules the following words and figures viz.
A preliminary decree for partition was passed on 12th December, 1942, in the following terms This suit companying on this day for final disposal in the presence of Shri M. Purushotham Naidu, advocate for the plaintiff, of Shri P. Lakshminarayana, pleader for the second defendant, of Shri T. Sreeramamurthi, advocate for fifth defendant, and of Shri B. Subba Rao, pleader for defendants 6 and 7, and defendants 3 and 4, appearing in person and defendants 1 and 8, being reported dead, this Court doth order and direct as follows That the properties in plaint Schedules A and A 1 and items 1 and 1 a of the A Schedule filed along with the written statement of defendants 6 to 8 Surasani Yanam lands be divided into equal sharas by metes and plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 be put in possession of one such share and the other share be taken by defendants 6 and 7.
The pedigree of the family is as follows JAGGIAH Maraeiah Butchiramayya Plaintiff d. 1912 d. 7 June, 1951 Son Daughters D2 D 3 D 4 D 5 D 1 Sitharamayya D 6 to D 8 Transposed as Plaintiffs Born 1903 2 to 5 by Order dt.
4 transposed on 5 11 51 as plaintiff No.
5.11.51 Died 1936 20.4.53 D 6 to D 8 surrendered their rights to D 9, 10, 11, 12 D.1s branch represented by D 9 to D 12.
4 submits, accounting to the claims made by and against individual parties mentioned in the preliminary decree.
4 has companyfined his argument to liability of Rs.
that it forms part of the joint family properties be and hereby is set aside partitioned amongst the parties to the suit That for the words and figures in the decree of the lower Court viz.
Learned Counsel for the appellant defendant No.
H. Beg, J. This is an appeal by one of the defendants in a partition suit.
That half of the purchase price of items 2 and 3 of Schedule A filed along with the written statement of defendants 6 to 8 ie.
That defendants 6 and 7 do deliver item 51 of the plaint B Schedule to the plaintiff, the other items having been divided between the parties with their companysent in Court on 30th November, 1942, as per memo filed by them on that date.
That defendants 6 and 7 do render accounts for first defendants management of all the properties subsequent to 6th December, 1925.
That plaintiff and defendants 6 and 7 do file accounts before the Commissioner in respect of the net income derived from the lands in plaint A and A 1 schedules which fell to their share prior to 1 7 1929 as mentioned in Exhibit XI, the account to be from 6 12 1925 till 1 7 1929.
That Item 2 of the point A 1 schedule and items 2 and 3 mentioned in the A schedule attached to the written statement of defendants 6 and 7 be companysidered to have been items of joint family property and that they be taken to have been already allotted and that the plaintiff do keep the said item 2 of the plaint A 1 schedule and that defendants 6 and 7 do keep the items 2 and 3 of the said A schedule attached to the written statement of defendants 6 and 7 and that there be numberpart of any one of the parties to pay interest to the other That for Clause 5 of the 1st paragraph of the decree of the lower Court, the following paragraph viz.
that the plaintiff, the 2nd, 6th and the 7th defendants and other parties to the suit do equally render accounts for their respective management including the receipt of income, of all the properties subsequent to 6th December, 1925 be and hereby is substituted That the Commissioner do follow the observations and directions companytained in the judgment herein in respect of the income in particular of the estates of Prakkilanka and Annadevara That Clause VI of the 1st paragraph of the decree of the lower companyrt be and hereby is deleted.
