The Karta of a Hindu joint family is not liable to a general accounting in the absence of any finding against him in regard to misappropriation, fraud, etc.

SHARFUDDIN AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of our learned brother Chandrasekhara Sastry, J. , made in A. S. No 267 of 1961 dated 12/08/1963. The suit, O. S. No. 3 of 1960, against which A. S. No. 267 of 1961 was filed, was instituted in the Court of the Additional district Judge, Srikakulam by the 1st appellant ( K. Appalanarasimhga Bhukta) against the respondents, 1st respondent being the Karta of the family of partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and separate possession of one such share and for directing the respondents to render an account of the management of the family estate from the date of death of the plaintiffs paternal grandfather to the date of suit and for payment to the plaintiff 1/4th share on such ascertainment. A further relief was sought for directing the respondents-defendants to pay his marriage katnam amounting to Rs. 6000. 00 with subsequent interest. It was stated that the plaintiffs father the late Lakshmi Narasimhbulu, the father of defendants No. 3 to 6 Surya Prakash Rao and defendants No. 1 and 2 are brothers and sons of the late Appalanarasimha Bhukta. The 2nd defendant is the son of Appalanarasimha Bhukta by his second wife the 8th defendant in the suit. The rest of the defendants are the sons of the 1st wife Pedda Kamamma. Appalanarasimha Bhukta and his sons constituted a Hindu Mitakshara joint family of which Appalanarasimha Bhukta was the manager during his life-time. He died on 22-11-1933. The father of the plaintiff predeceased him. Surya Prakash Rao died on 9-5-1946 and later the management of the estate passed on to the 1st defendant. The family property consisted of lands, moveable, such as silver-ware, brassware and live-stock etc. The family had an income of roughly Rs. 1,50,000 per annum consisting of paddy, grains and cash. The landed properties are described in schedule A while the house property including the vacant sites the house property including the vacant sites are described in Schedule B and the movable properties in Schedule C. The plaintiffs father died in the year 1959 even before the plaintiff was born. His grand father died when he was only three years old. His mother was residing in her fathers house in Lukulam Agraharam and being young and inexperienced entered into an agreement with plaintiffs paternal uncle to receive a sum of Rs. 250. 00 per month for her maintenance and that of her minor son and for other expenditure during his minority. That was the only amount that the plaintiff and his mother were receiving during that period, the 1st respondent having acquired the management of the family estate subsequent to the death of Surya Prakash Rao, the father of D-3 to D-6, began to divert the family funds and invest a part of the sum in acquisition of properties in the name of other benami for himself. He also secreted large amounts of money and gold with his near relations. The plaintiff further alleged that from the time of the paternal grandfathers death there has been a systematic and dishonest manipulation of accounts with a view to cheat the plaintiff of his legitimate share in the accumulations. The family was receiving 600 garces of paddy from the landed property and it was selling at Rs. 800. 00 a garce during that period. The 1st respondent was realising huge amounts and secreting the entire amounts. The respondents were, therefore, liable to accounts and the plaintiffs entitled to receive 1/4th share of such accumulations. It was, therefore, prayed that a decree in favour of the plaintiff be passed directing the respondents to render an account of the management of the family estate from the date of the death of the plaintiffs paternal grandfather up to the date of suit and to pay to the plaintiff 1/4th share of the amount on ascertainment.

( 2 ) THE main contesting party was the 1st respondent i. e. , the 1st defendant in the suit. He denied all the allegations made in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document