GHIKKAM KORESWARA RAO Vs. CHIKKAM SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises for decision in this appeal by certificate is whether the properties covered by Exh B-6 were the properties of the joint Hindu family of the parties to the suit and consequently available for partition.

(2.) The suit is for partition in a family governed by Mitakshara law. The appellant and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are brothers. Their father was one Reddinaidu. The father and the three sons constituted a joint Hindu family. The father died in about the year 1937. The appellant was the eldest son. The suit from which this appeal arises was brought by the 1st respondent claiming a 1/3rd share in the properties detailed in the plaint-schedule. Some of the properties included in the plaint-schedule are admittedly joint family properties. About them there is no dispute. But the appellant claimed that the properties covered by Exhs. B-2 to B-7 are his separate properties and as such his brothers cannot claim any share therein. The trial Court accepted his contention and granted a decree for partition only in respect of properties other than those covered by those documents. The High Court affirmed the decree of the trial Court in respect of properties covered by " Exhs. B-2 to B-5 and B-7 but as regards the properties by Exh B-6 relying on certain alleged admission by the appellant, it held that they were joint family properties. At this stage it would be appropriate to quote the observations of the High Court relating to the properties covered by Exh B-6.

(3.) It is clear from the judgment of the High Court that but for the aforementioned statement of the appellant, the High Court would not have disturbed the finding of the trial Court as regards the properties covered by Exh. B-6. Before the right of a party can be considered to have been defeated on the basis of an alleged admission by him, the implication of the statement made by him must be clear and conclusive. There should be no doubt or ambiguity about the alleged admission. There is no difference in the nature of the acquisitions made under Exhs B-2 to B-5 and B-7 and that made under Exh- B-6. They were all made during the lifetime of Reddinaidu.