C. ANANDA ACHARYULU Vs. C. SRIDHAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit has been filed for partition and passing of preliminary decree allotting 1/3 share in the suit properties to the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the suit is as follows :

(3.) The first and third defendants have not contested the matter. Only the second defendant filed a written statement admitting the relationship between the parties, it is the contention of the second defendant that the plaintiff and the first and second defendants are co-owners and not otherwise. It is his contention that except two properties acquired in the joint ownership along with the second plaintiff, the other properties cannot be partitioned. It is the contention of the second defendant that only Item Nos.1 and 2 alone can be partitioned. It is his further contention that two of their sisters have also not been impleaded for partition. It is further contended that with regard to the first item of the property, there is no joint fmaily business as alleged by the plaintiff. The jewelry business was carried on by the first plaintiff and after the retirement of their father, the same is also apportioned and given to each sons. There was no joint business as contended by the plaintiff and there is only a partnership agreement entered between the second plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2. Even there is any such business it could be only partnership action. Therefore, there cannot be any partition. It is his further contention that Item No.4 is not available for partition. Item No.3 of the property is purchased by the second defendant using his own funds without any contribution from any joint family property or business. It is his further contention that he has no objection for partition of the properties in Item Nos.1, 2 and 5 and divided as stated by the plaintiff. In the second item of the property, the second plaintiff is in enjoyment of the ground floor and the first defendant is in enjoyment of the first floor and the second defendant is in enjoyment of the second floor and only when the second defendant wanted to lease out his portion, the second plaintiff has created problem. It is his further contention that the second defendant himself disposed many properties but for the second defendant administration and management of the first item of the property and the jewelery business could not have yielded any income to enjoy every one. As long as the second defendant managed the first item of the property, there was no issue. Only on the intervention of the second plaintiff, mismanagement and maladministration has been witnessed by the family. Further, it is his contention that the second defendant has paid a sum of Rs.26,86,390/- towards the loan availed on the second item of the property and others refused to contribute to discharge of the loan. Accordingly, it is his contention that he is also entitled to 1/3rd share in item nos.1, 2 and 5 and the counter claim of a sum of Rs.26,80,390/- towards reimbursement to clear the loan on the second item of the property.