PACHIPULUSU VENKATSUBBAIAH Vs. PACHIPULUSU VENKATACHALAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddapah, in Original Suit No. 2 of 1954.

(2.) The parties to this appeal originally belonged to the village of Nallapureddipalli in the Rajampet taluk of the Cuddapah district, and are members of the same family. Their relationship is shown in the following genealogical table :- Subbarayudu. <IMG>JUDGEMENT_284_ANDHWR2_1961Image1.jpg</IMG> Subbarayudu, shown at the head of the table, had an aurasa son, by name Ramayya. Ramayya predeceased his father leaving behind him his widow Peddakkayya but no issue. Thereafter, Subbarayudu adopted Somayya. Somayya had four sons, Venkatarangiah, Venkatasubbayya, Venkataswami and Venkatachalamiah. Venkatarangiah died in 1930 survived by his sons, defendants 3, 4, and 5. Venkatasubbayya was the first plaintiff and his sons are plaintiffs 2 and 3. Venkataswami, the third son of Somayya, was impleaded as the first defendant in the suit. He died during its pendency. Venkatachalamiah, the fourth son of Somayya, was impleaded as the and defendant. He died after the disposal of the suit and during the pendency of this appeal. The 6th defendant is said to be in possession of one of the items (item 27) of the plaint 'A ' schedule. Venkatasubbayya and his two sons instituted the suit on the 31st August, 1948, originally in the District Court, Cuddapah, as O.S. No. 37 of 1948, for ascertainment of the family properties available for partition, for division of the properties into four equal shares and for partition and delivery of possession of one such share to them. The suit was subsequently transferred to the Sub-Court, Cuddapah, and there it was re-numbered as O.S. No. 2 of 1954. To the plaint are appended three schedules. Schedule ' A ' consists of 348 items of lands ; schedule B', of houses ; and schedule ' C ' of moveables alleged to belong to the family. Briefly stated, the case for the plaintiffs was that as a result of family dissensions, the brothers decided to become separate and to divide the family properties, and therefore,

(3.) The eldest son of Venkatasubbayya, the 2nd plaintiff, attained majority during the pendency of the suit ; and after he was declared a major, he was removed at his request from the arrary of plaintiffs and transposed as the 7th defendant in the suit. Subsequent to his transposition, he filed a written statement wherein he -alleged that " the agreement of 1946 was extracted from his father, the first plaintiff, by fraud and coercion, that it was a highly unfair settlement ", that therefore it did not bind him and that he was entitled to a 1/9th share in the entire family estate. On these contentions, the learned trial Judge framed the following, among other issues :-