EDLA VENKAT RAJ REDDY Vs. EDLA LINGA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Ranga Reddy, rendered in A.S. No.25 of 1989 under which the appeal directed against the judgment of the District Munsiff, Ibrahimpatnam, dated 26-4-1989 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for partition for all the suit schedule items of the properties was set aside and a preliminary decree for partition of only one item of the property was passed.

(2.) The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant herein and the defendants are the respondents. The first appeal was filed by the first defendant in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit against defendants for partition of lands to an extent of Ac.5.27 gts. in Sy. No.374, Ac.3.15 gts. in Sy. No.372, Ac.1.29 gts. in Sy. No.378, Ac. 1.08 gts. in Sy. No.379, Ac.2.17 gts. in Sy. No.380, Ac. 9.01 gts. in Sy. No.381 and Ac.9.33 gts. in Sy. No.382 of Tulekalam Village, Ibrahimpatnam, hereinafter to be referred to as the suit lands, into eight shares by metes and bounds and for allotment of two such shares to him. It is averred that the plaintiff and the 1st and second defendant are brothers and defendants 3 and 4 are their cousins and the suit lands are joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants and that all of them have been jointly enjoying possession of the suit properties. It is stated that the plaintiff and second defendant are entitled to 1/4th share each, defendants 3 and 4 together are entitled to the remaining 1/4th share in the suit lands. It is further stated that the lands in Sy. Nos.377 to 382 stand in the name of the plaintiff and the third defendant though all the suit lands are the joint family properties. In view of differences having cropped up, the suit for partition has been filed. (The first defendant, aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court filed the appeal in the District Court). In his written statement, the first defendant admitted the relationship between the parties. It is stated that the suit lands are not the joint family properties. It is further stated that after the death of his father, he (defendant No.1) acquired the suit lands on lease from the original pattadar prior to the year 1950 and in the year 1950 a protected tenancy certificate was issued in his name in respect of the suit lands. In the year 1975 a certificate under Section 38-E of A.P. (Telanagana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act, was issued in his name in respect of the suit lands, except the land in Sy. No.374. It is stated that in respect of the land in Sy. No.374 a certificate under Sec.38-E of the Tenancy Act was wrongly issued in the name of the 3rd defendant. The 1st defendant in his capacity as absolute owner permitted the plaintiff and other defendants to cultivate the land in Sy. No.378 to 382 along with him and thus the plaintiff, defendants 3 and 4 are in possession of the lands along with him and their names have been shown as cultivators in the pahanies. It is stated that taking advantage of the entries in the pahanies, the plaintiff in collusion with defendants 3 and 4 filed the suit with mala fide intention.

(3.) Defendants 3 and 4 remained ex parte in the trial Court. Though it appears in the trial Court's judgment it was mentioned as if these defendants were also represented by an advocate as pointed out in the judgment of the District Court.