SRINIVASA REDDY Vs. KARUPPA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TERSELY and briefly, the case of the plaintiffs as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title over the suit properties as set out in the 'B' Schedule of the plaint of which 'A' Schedule of properties forms part and for injunction as against the defendants and in the alternative they prayed for partition of 'A' Schedule property and for allotment of 1/3 share in it and for other incidental reliefs.

(2.) THE properties mentioned in the 'A' Schedule of the plaint along with other properties originally belonged to Chinnaiya Reddy, the father of the first plaintiff and the grand father of the defendants. Chinnaiya Reddy had three sons namely (i)Kannaiya Reddy, the father of the first defendant (ii)Kuppa Reddy, father of the second defendant and (3)Karuppa Reddy, the first plaintiff. As such, the said Chinnaiya Reddy and his aforesaid three sons with their joint effort purchased the properties in the name of Kannaiya Reddy, who, happened to be the eldest son of Chinnaiya Reddy. THE properties so purchased were treated as joint family properties. Some of them were also alienated. Chinnaiya Reddy died intestate 40 years ago. His wife Thangammal died 30 years ago. In those circumstances, the said Kannaiya Reddy being the eldest son of Chinnaiya Reddy managed the suit properties in his capacity as the Manager of the Hindu Joint Family. While so, 19 years anterior to the filing of the suit, the 'A' Scheduled properties were orally partitioned and the 'B' Scheduled properties were allotted in favour of the first plaintiff in the presence of five panchayatars. Consequently, mutation was effected in the revenue records in the name of the first plaintiff relating to the 'B' Scheduled properties. THE first plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property in his own capacity as owner openly, peacefully and continuously to the knowledge of the defendants and also hostile to the ownership of the defendants for over twelve years and accordingly the first plaintiff became the owner of the suit properties. THE first plaintiff's aforesaid two brothers died a few years anterior to the filing of the suit. THE defendants with an ulterior motive started disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of 'B' Scheduled properties by the plaintiff since 09.10.1988. THE second plaintiff is the grand son of the first plaintiff in favour of whom, the former executed in favour of the later Ex.A20 and Ex.A21 the settlement deeds dated 26.8.1987 and 20.04.1988 settling items 1 to 7 in the 'B' Schedule properties. Hence the suit.

(3.) THE trial court ultimately decreed the suit declaring that the 'B' Scheduled properties belonged to first plaintiff and that the defendants should not interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by granting an injunction as against the defendants. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial court, the first defendant filed this appeal on various grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus:- THE judgment and decree of the trial court is against law, weight of evidence and all probabilities of the case. Relying on the receipts and the Chitta, the trial Court erroneously decreed the suit as prayed by the plaintiffs. Ignoring the sale deeds in the name of the first defendant's father, Kannaiya Reddy, the trial Court decided the case in favour of the plaintiffs. THEre was no iota or shred of evidence to prove that joint family existed among Chinnaiya Reddy and his three sons and that owing to joint family exertion only, the suit properties were purchased. THE burden of proof was on the plaintiff, but, he failed to discharge the same. Accordingly, the first plaintiff prayed for decreeing the suit.