The liability of a coparcener to account for profits subsequent to the institution of a partition suit is personal and does not run with the property. No charge on the property is created by operation of law for the recovery of subsequent profits. The alienation of the property by the coparcener pending the appeal is not hit by lis pendens.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the 8th defendant, in O S No. 74/51 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Ongole, gives rise to an interesting question of law, whether a co-parcener of a Hindu Joint Family who has obtained a preliminary decree for partition of the family properties is entitled to proceed against the property alienated by any defendant co-parcener pending an appeal against the preliminary decree and before the passing of the final decree, for the recovery of mesne profits in respect of that alienated item of property.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the scope of the question, it is necessary to state briefly the facts and circumstances which are not in dispute and which lie in a short compass: Raghavaiah and Venkata Subbaiah, sons of P. Sriramulu, instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of their hal share in the plaint a and b schedule properties and for accounts relating to future profits and rents, against their brother Gopalam (1st defendant) and panduranga Rao, the son and Bhramaramba, the widow of their late elder brother Adinarayana Rao, and Muddana Chenchuramayya, the cultivating tenant of item 4 of the plaint a schedule. The preliminary decree for partition with a direction to account in regard to rents and profits for the period subsequent to the date of suit, was passed by the court of the subordinate Judge, Ongole on October 21, 1952. On August 4, 1953, plaintiffs 1 and 2 settled on Bommaraju Annapurnamma, the foster daughter of the 2nd plaintiff, under a registered settlement deed, undivided Ac 0-50 cents of land in item No. 4 and ac. 0-20 cents in items 1 and 3 of the plaint a schedule. She was therefore brought on record as the 3rd plaintiff. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, defendants 2 and 3 preferred a. S. No 192/53 in the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal i. e. , on January 7, 1955, Raghavaiah, the 1st plaintiff died unmarried and issuelcss. Except the Ac. o. 25 cents of land in item 4 and 10 cents in items I and 3 which were settled under the settlement deed in favour of the 3rd plaintiff, the deceased Ist plaintiff s interest in other items of the plaint schedule properties devolved equally on his two surviving brothers, namely Venkata Subbaiah and Gopalam. The 1st defendant (Gopalam) also passed away on January 31, 1955 leaving behind his eons and widow who were subsequently brought on record as defendants 5, 6, and 7 respectively. The 6th defendant also died in the year 1956 unmarried and issueless as a result of which his interest devolved upon bis mother, the 7th defendant. The 2nd defendant sold his father Adinarayana s 1/4 share in item No. 4 of the plaint a schedule to one Ravella verkata Subbaiah under a registered sale deed on February 16, 1956. He was there upon added as defendant No. 8 and as 5th respondent in A. S. No. 192/53, On November 18, 1958 A. S. No. 192/53 was dismissed by the high Court. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 have field I. A No. 1495/59 for the passing of a final decree for mesne profits attributable to their share in item No. 4 of the plaint, a schedule for a period of four years, viz 1949-50 to 1952-53. Defendants 2 to 5, 7, and 8 are respondents in the application. The 1st respondent became ex parte. The 2nd respondent did not file any counter, respondent No. 3 (4th defendant) who was the lessce of item 4 under a registered lease deed executed by Adinarayana, me then manager of the joint family on 5-7-1945 for a period of lo years, the rent payable being 10 1/2 candies of Molakolukulu paddy in kind valued at Rs. l. OOO/- pleadec that he paid the maktha to defendants 2 and 3, the legal representatives of late Adinarayana, the lessor. Respondents 4 and 5 claimed pro rats mesne profits in respect of their shares. The 6th respondent (defendan No. 8), the alienee contended that he is not liable to any profits for the period prior to the date of his purchase, i. e 16-2-1956, in respect of the item purchased by him, nor the al

Click Here to Read the rest of this document