SUBRAMANIA REDDI DEAD Vs. VENKATASUBBA REDDI DEAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rama-krishna Reddy had three sons, Veeraswami Reddy, Venkatasubba Reddy and Krishna Doss, and a daughter, Seethalakshmi Ammal. Veeraswami Reddy died in 1965 survived by defendant No. 3, Sreeramulu Reddy. He has three daughters, who are not concerned with the present litigation. Venkatasubba Reddy, (the first defendant in the suit when the proceedings arose) through Kanthammal (4th defendant in the suit), has three sons and two daughters. Venkatasubba Reddy died on 31-10-1972. Defendants Nos. 5 to 9 are three sons and two daughters impleaded in the suit, and Ramathilakammal, the other daughter was impleaded as respondent No. 21 in the appeal. The third son of late Ramakrishna Reddy was the second defendant in the suit, who had married the 12th defendant whose son is the plaintiff Subramania Reddy. Seethalakshmi Ammal, the 10th defendant is the daughter of Ramakrishna Reddy. The 11th defendant has been impleaded as lessee of some of the items of the suit properties. Defendants Nos. 13 to 17 and 19 and 20 are either alienees or mortgagees of suit properties.

(2.) Plaintiff, Subramania Reddy, brought a suit for partition and separate possession of the various properties set out in the schedules to the plaint. The case set up by him is that the three sons of Ramakrishna Reddy succeeded to their father's property and though the eldest son Veeraswami Reddy was for some time managing the properties, it was the first defendant who assumed management of the properties by making his way through by ignoring Veeraswami Reddy. 'A' schedule properties are those which have been left behind by Ramakrishna Reddy. 'B' schedule properties consist of some properties admittedly standing in the names of the first and second defendants, but claimed by the plaintiff as acquisitions of or accretions to the joint family properties. 'C' schedule property stands in the name of the tenth defendant in which the plaintiff claims one-sixth of share. He asserts that the said property had been purchased out of joint family funds, stood merely in the name of the tenth defendant. 'D' schedule consists of a rice mill and a cinema house at Lachivakkam. 'E' schedule consists of movables alleged to belong to the joint family.

(3.) Three sons of late Ramakrishna Reddy namely, Veeraswami Reddy, Venkatasubba Reddy and Krishnadas Reddy purchased properties in the names of one or the other but that all the same out of the assistance of joint family funds. The plaintiff contended that Seethalakshmi Ammal, the 10th defendant having no resources of her own to purchase the property at Madras with her three brothers having contributed funds for the purchase of the same that property should be treated as brought into common hotchpot for the purposes of division. The plaintiff alleged that between 1965 and 1967 an attempt had been made to partition all the available joint family properties wherein the three brothers, at the instigation of the first defendant, were impleaded to allot some properties belonging to the joint family to the tenth defendant. The first defendant insisted on making a provision to Seethalakshmi Ammal inasmuch as he had given one of his sons to 7th defendant in adoption to her. The plaintiff was not inclined to accept the proposals for partitioning the joint family properties on that basis. For the reasons enumerated by him the mode of division was not acceptable on him as mostly liabilities were saddled to him. Faced with this situation, the plaintiff stated that the family continued to be joint and remained undivided. When he insisted on division of joint family properties, the first defendant took the stand that the joint family had already been divided in 1958 and 1959, as per the partition deeds, marked as Exhibits A-105 and A-106 and that is conclusive of the issue that the plaintiff would not be entitled to anything more than what has been allotted to each of them. Plaintiff relied on Exhibit A-115 to contend that the partition effected pursuant to Exhibits A-105 and A-106 were not acted upon. Thus, the first defendant refused to give any share to the plaintiffs other than the one provided under Exhibits A-105 and A-106. His case is that the said two documents were only nominal deeds made by the family to evade land ceiling laws and that in spite of the alleged partition in 1958 and 1959 the family continued to be joint and there was an attempt to factually partition the joint family properties only in the years 1966-67. He contends that his father, the second defendant in the suit, was merely a tool in the hands of first defendant overwhelmed by his brooding presence. Though his father was a party to the partition deeds under Exhibits A-105 and A-106, they were all drawn up when he was a minor and they are unfair and inequitable as they do not give legitimate share to the plaintiff. Initially, an attempt was made to demonstrate that Exhibits A-105 and A-106 were a result of fraud, undue influence and coercion but that point was not pursued. Documents at exhibit A-115 came into existence in the year 1966-1967, is clear proof that there was no partition as joint family in the year 1958 or 1959 and if really there was such a partition, there is no need to bring into existence the documents Exhibit as A-115. Plaintiff further put forth his case that certain other properties which are given to the family under Exhibits A-94 and A-95, are joint family properties inasmuch as they have blended with the other properties.