His eldest son, Venkatramaiah, was number an intelligent man, though he was good enough to look after the cultivation of the lands.
The learned Subordinate Judge, on a companysideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence, held that the properties standing in the name of the 1st defendant were also joint family properties and that Ex.
After the death of the father, Narasimha was in charge of the management of the money lending business and the business at Eluru and was also looking after the Court affairs.
The suit came up before the Subordinate Judge, Eluru, and it was renumbered as O. S. No.
His younger son, Narasimha, was an abled man in whom the father had companyfidence and though, he was the younger son, he was helping his father in the management of the family affairs and indeed even during his fathers lifetime many properties were purchased in his name.
and for giving him his extra ??
69 of 1952 by Pullaiah in the Court of the District Judge, Eluru, against Narasimha and his sons and others for partition of the joint family property by metes and bounds.
He impleaded Narasimha and his sons as defendants 1 to 4 and his mother, as defendant 5.
The following genealogy will be useful to appreciate the companytentions of the parties MATURI PEDA VENKAIAH d. 1928 Venkatramaiah d. 16 1 52 Narasimha R I Saramma Rama Rao D 2 Serveswara Venkateswara Rao D 3 Rao D 4 by 1st wife by 2nd wife Nagamma Venkatanarasamma D 5 Satvavati Pullaiah d. 9 8 36 Venkateswara Pullaiah Nagaratnam Swarajalakshmi Venkamma Rao d 12 12 33 P ltf.
Peda Venkaiah, Venkateswara Rao, Pulliah the son of Venkatramaiah by his first wife, and Venkatramaiah died in 1928, 1933, 1936 and 1952 respectively.
It is number necessary to numberice the other findings given by the learned Subordinate Judge, as numberhing turns upon them in this appeal.
B 1, dated November 4, 1939, embodied a family arrangement effected between Venkatramaiah and Narasimha whereunder the 1st defendants branch would be entitled to 3 shares and the branch of Venkatramaiah would be entitled to 2 shares in all the joint family properties and that the said family arrangement was valid and binding on the plaintiff.
After the death of Venkatramaiah in 1952, disputes arose between Narasimha and Venkatramaiahs son, Pullaiah, which led to the filing of O. S. No.
During the companyrse of his management large extent of properties were purchased in his name.
Peda Venkiah had numberancestral property all his properties were his self acquisitions.
The other defendants were persons who had joint interest in some of the family properties.
In the result he gave a decree to the plaintiff for two fifths of the joint family properties.
In paragraphs 4,5,6 and 7 of the written statement, the 1st, defendant stated how his father before his death gave directions that when the family properties were divided between him and Venkatramaiah such additional property as might be fixed by their mother should be given to him, how after his fathers death Venkatramaiah requested him to manage the family properties as he was doing before and promised that he would give him such extra property, how in 1927, when he fell ill, he insisted upon a ??
Hence the present appeal.
On appeal, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court companyfirmed the view of the learned Subordinate Judge both on the factum and the validity of the family arrangement.
Defendants 1 to 4 mainly companytested the suit on the ground that under the family arrangement the 1st defendant was given three shares in the joint family properties and Venkatramaiah was given two shares therein and that all the properties standing in the name of the 1st defendant were his self acquisitions.
86 of 1954.
Subba Rao, J. This appeal mainly raises the question of the factum and validity of a family arrangement alleged to have been effected between the members of a joint Hindu family.
