AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Against the 2nd defendant nothing is shown except that she is living with her husband in a house which is said to have belonged to the deceased,
a point, however, on which the District Judge has recorded no finding. As regards defendants Nos. 1 and 3 the decree is right. It is found that they
took possession of some of the property of the deceased, and this is sufficient to throw upon them the burden of proving that they did not receive
so much of the property of the deceased as would satisfy the debt, vide Magaluri Garudiah v. Narayana Rungiah 3 M.k 359. This burden they did
not discharge. The lower Court''s decree against defendants Nos. 1 and 3 is confirmed and their appeal dismissed with costs. The personal decree
against the 2nd defendant is set aside with Vakils'' fee paid by heir and one-third of the other costs in this and the lower appellate Court.