MALIREDDY SREERAMULU REDDY Vs. MALIREDDY RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 658 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, filed this second appeal. The suit was filed against the respondents herein for the relief of partition of the suit schedule property, an extent of Ac. 2.81 cents of land in Chinnamachupalle Village of Chennur Mandal, Kadapa District into 5 acre shares and allotment of one share each to the appellants and balance to the defendants, according to their entitlement.

(2.) The case of the appellants is that the Malireddy Bali Reddy is the common ancestor and through his first wife, he begot Veera Reddy, the father of respondents 2, 3 and 5. After the death of the first wife, Bali Reddy married Narayanamma, and through her he got the first plaintiff and three sons by name, Ramakrishna Reddy (1st respondent), Subba Reddy, husband of the 2nd appellant, Sreenivasulu Reddy, the father of the 4th respondent. In addition to them, three daughters are also said to have been begotten. According to the plaintiffs, an extent of Ac. 12.68 cents of land in various survey numbers of the same village was purchased in the name of Veera Reddy, and except the suit schedule property, rest of the land was sold, over the period of time. It was alleged that the suit schedule property though was purchased in the name of Veera Reddy, belongs to the joint family.

(3.) The suit was resisted mainly by respondents 2, 3 and 5. According to them, Veera Reddy was fostered by the sister of Bali Reddy, who was residing in a different village, and with the funds made available by her, the suit schedule property and other lands were purchased by Veera Reddy. They have also pleaded that the partition of the joint family took place long back, and the suit schedule property was never the subject-matter of partition. The trial Court dismissed the suit, through its judgment dated 04-07-2005. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed A.S. No. 89 of 2005. During the pendency of the appeal, the 2nd appellant died, and the matter was pursued by the 1st appellant alone. Through its judgment dated 19-11-2009, the lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.