CHITRAPUR SUBBAYYAMMA Vs. CHITRAPUR BUCHI VENKAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three petitions for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against our judgment and decree in A. S. Nos. 31 & 491 of 1949. The suit under appeal was one for partition in which the six sons of the late Chitrapur Venkatachelam Pantullu, who was public prosecutor and Government Pleader of East Godavari district for many years, were each given by the Subordinate Judge 1/6 share in plaint items 1 to 40. The suit was filed by four younger sons and was resisted by the eldest son, the first defendant, who claimed the properties as his self- acquisitions. In appeals from this decree, we confirmed the partition decree as regards items 1 to 25 and allowed the appeal of the first defendant and his wife the 3rd defendant as regards items 26 to 40 which, we held, were their self- acquisitions, or separate property.

(2.) In C. M. P. No. 12347 of 1953, the plaintiffs geek leave to appeal as regards items 26 to 40. The value of these items is admittedly more than Rs. 20,000. As it is a reversing judgment as regards these items, they are entitled to, and are granted leave to appeal. In C. M. P. No. 13117 of 1953, the first defendant seeks leave to appeal as regards the finding that Items 1 to 24 are liable to partition. The value of these items is admittedly in excess of Rs. 20,000 but as regards them, our Judgment confirmed the finding of the trial court. In C. M. P. No. 10920 of 1953, the third-defendant, who is the wife of the first defendant, seeks leave to appeal only as regards item 25, which she claimed as her separate property. In appeal, her right to four other items 26 to 29 were upheld in reversal of the Subordinate Judge's decree. As regards items 26 to 29, the plaintiffs are entitled to appeal and it is necessary for the third defendant to appear in the appeal to the Supreme Court and defend her rights as regards those items. Item 25 by itself is admittedly less than Rs. 20,000 in value and the finding of the Subordinate Judge that this item was liable to partition was confirm- ed in appeal.

(3.) The point arises whether we should give leave to the first defendant and the third defendant also to appeal to the Supreme Court, we have been referred to a number of decisions of this court on the scope of Article 133 of the gonstitution but no decision has been placed before us in which where one party, who has satisfied the financial and other requirements of Article 133(1)(a) so far as his appeal is concerned has been granted leave, which has however been refused to the other parties to the same decree who are not so qualified. We have referred to the Pull Bench decision --'C. Subbarao v. V. M. Chelamayya', which, in view of conflicts of decisions of Division Benches, answered the following question referred to a Pull Bench.