Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : O.CHINNAPPA REDDY, VISWANATHA SASTRY
Achuta Yellamandaiah - Appellant
Versus
Kurakulakshmamma - Respondent
Decided On : 08-25-75
LIMITATION - ADMINISTRATION SUIT - CLAIMS OF CREDITORS - WHETHER BARRED BY LIMITATION - EFFECT OF JOINING CREDITORS AS PARTIES TO THE SUIT - WHETHER CLAIMS OF CREDITORS GET TIME-BARRED AT ALL - WHETHER FINDING OF LOWER COURT THAT DEBTS DUE TO CREDITORS WERE BARRED BY LIMITATION IS SUSTAINABLE - WHETHER PROPERTIES CLAIMED BY SECOND WIFE AS HER SEPARATE PROPERTY BELONGED TO HER - WHETHER FINDING OF LOWER COURT THAT PROPERTIES BELONGED TO SECOND WIFE IS SUSTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Kuraka Subbarayudu died leaving behind his wives and sons and daughters. He left a large estate consisting of immovable and movable properties. Five plaintiffs, who were creditors of Subbarayudu, filed a suit for administration of his estate. The second wife of Subbarayudu claimed that certain properties belonged to her as her separate property and that they should not be proceeded against for recovery of debts due by Subbarayudu. The lower court held that the debts claimed by the fifth plaintiff and defendants 29 to 32 were barred by limitation by the date of the preliminary decree and that the properties claimed by the second wife belonged to her. The plaintiffs and defendants 29 to 32 appealed against the decision of the lower court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the claims of the creditors did not get time-barred at all once they were joined as parties to the administration suit and that the finding of the lower court that the debts due to the creditors were barred by limitation was not sustainable. The High Court also held that the properties claimed by the second wife did not belong to her and that the finding of the lower court that the properties belonged to the second wife was not sustainable.
Issues: 1. Whether the claims of the creditors were barred by limitation by the date of the preliminary decree? 2. Whether the properties claimed by the second wife belonged to her?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the claims of the creditors did not get time-barred at all once they were joined as parties to the administration suit. The High Court relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Ramaswami v. Rangaswami, AIR 1931 Mad 683, which held that the claims of creditors who are joined as parties to an administration suit do not get time-barred at all. 2. The High Court held that the properties claimed by the second wife did not belong to her. The High Court found that there was no evidence to show that the second wife had enough funds to purchase the properties and that the evidence of the second wife and her mother about the source of consideration for the purchase of the properties was not reliable.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeals to the extent indicated. The High Court held that the debts due to the creditors were not barred by limitation and that the properties claimed by the second wife belonged to the estate of Subbarayudu. The High Court directed that the properties be sold in pursuance of the preliminary decree.
( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of an administration suit. A. S. 179/72 is preferred by plaintiffs 1 and 3 to 5. A. S. 752/72 is preferred by defendants 29 to 32.
( 2 ) ONE Kuraka Subbarayudu died on 16-3-1968 leaving behind him defendants 1 and 2, his wives and defendants 5 to 9 his sons and daughters. He has left a large estate which is shown in A-schedule property which consists of immovable and B-schedule movable properties. Originally the suit was filed by five plaintiffs who re creditors of Subbarayudu. As the 2nd plaintiff died plaintiffs 6 to 12 were added as his legal representatives. The 1st plaintiff obtained a decree for Rs. 6,000. 00 and odd and costs on 30-10-1970 under ex. A-1 against Subbarayulu and other defendants and his heirs. Similarly the 3rd plaintiff obtained a decree for Rs. 4,000/ and odd plus costs on 30-8-1968 under Ex. A-18. The 4th plaintiff also obtained similar decree for Rs. 10,223-76 on 30-6-1971 vide Ex. A-14. The 5th plaintiff lent a sum of Rs. 3,000. 00 on a promissory note dated 7-7-1967 which has been marked as Ex. A-7. There are two payments made on 4-1-1968 and 7-4-1968 of Rs. 1000. 00 each of which have been separately marked as Exs. A-7 (a) and A-7 (b ). The plaintiffs claimed that all the properties in A and B schedules are liable to discharge the debts due to them and the other defendants. Originally some of the other creditors were impleaded as defendants but subsequently most of the other creditors got themselves impleaded by filing petitions on their own behalf. By the date of the disposal of the suit there were 75 defendants in the lower court out of which defendants 1 to 9 are the heirs of Subbarayudu while the other defendants are all the creditors and the legal representatives.
( 3 ) THE main contest was raised by the 2nd defendant who happens to be the second wife of late Subbayudu. According to her, items 10 to 17 shown in A-schedule belonged to her as per separate property. She says that she has purchased those properties with her own funds, that she was alone in possession realising the rents, leasing out the lands and paying cist thereof. These properties, therefore cannot be proceeded against for recovery of debts due by Subbarayudu. There are also other defences raised by the 2nd defendant which are here not very relevant but one of the other defences raised by her in the lower court was that the debts claimed by the 5th plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 29 to 32 were barred by time by the date of the preliminary decree tough not by the date of the suit and hence they are not entitled to claim any share out of the assets of Subbarayudu. The other defendants have also pleaded that the debts contracted by Subbaraydu were Avyavaharika and the business debts incurred by Subbarayudu were not binding upon his sons. Item 2 was also claimed to be the self-acquired property by Subbarayudu.
( 4 ) ON the above pleading the lower court framed appropriate issues and after a trial passed a preliminary decree directing the administration of the estate of Subbarayudu after excluding items 10 to 15 of the A-Schedule. The lower Court held that the 2nd defendant purchased those items under Ex. A-23 and Ex. B-1 with her own funds and, therefore, they should be treated as her own property and not the property of Subbarayudu. As regards the debts due to the 5th plaintiff and defendants 29 to 32 the lower court held that since these debts were barred by the date of the preliminary decree they were not entitled to claim any amounts. The lower court relied upon the decision in Ananthan Pillai v. Krishna Iyer (AIR 1960 Ker 222) for coming to that conclusion. As regards the question of liability of the sons the lower court left it open and allowed the creditors to work out their remedies as against the sons in execution. They are so entitled to pursue their remedies against the other joint family properties. Even though the lower Court has held item 2 as the self acquired
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
