SEVANTHI BAI Vs. MANDODHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partition of plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties by meters and bounds. They claimed 1\5th share. They also claimed a share in 'C' schedule property. They also sought a direction that defendants 1,4 to 8 should account for the income derived and collected from A and B schedule properties and pay their share out of the rents. They also claimed costs.

(2.) In the plaint it was contended that one Sharfaji Neemkar, the ancestor of the parties died in the year 1980, he had two wives one by name Balubai who died in the year 1985. Sharfaji Neemkar through her had two sons Nagender Rao Neemkar defendant No.1 and late Laxminarayana, the husband of plaintiff No.l and father of plaintiffs 2 and

(3.) He had also one daughter by name Kamalabai defendant No.2. The second wife of Late Sharfaji Neemkar was Savanthi Bai, the defendant No.3 and through her he had five sons Subash, Suresh, Shivaji, Ashok and Raju @ Sachidanand who were arrayed as defendants 4 to 8. He had six daughters by name Shivakala, Renukala, Sashikala, Shoba, Sundar and Sangeetha who were arrayed as defendants 9 to 14. Late Sharafaji Neemkar left properties in the shape of mulgies, residential house and an open area. He left about 22 mulgies along with open space and a residential house bearing No.7-2-1 and an open area of about 3 acres of land. The property is situated in different places at Hyderabad. After the death of Sharfaji Neemkar there was on oral partition between Laxminarayana i.e., husband of plaintiff No.l and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 on one hand and between defendants 1 to 14 on the other. Where as the mulgies Bearing Nos. 7-2-1/A2 to 5 and some open space and a portion of residential house bearing No. 7-2-1 along with open space fell to the share of Laxminarayana 3 acres of land was kept joint and undivided subject to partition later. After the oral partition Laxminarayana leased out the mulgies and open space, which fell to his share, to the tenants namely defendants 15 to 19 under lease deeds and started collecting rents. Laxminarayana died on 17-10-1986. The defendants 1 to 14 took advantage of plaintiff No.l being a widow and plaintiffs 2 and 3 being minors, prevailed upon the tenants, defendants 15 to 19, and started collecting rents from them. Therefore, it is submitted that, they are bound to account for the same. Notice was given on 17-8-87 for partition and mesne profits. The defendants admitted the relationship of the parties but denied oral partition and stated that during the life time of Sharfaji Neemkar everybody were empowered to collect rents and during the lifetime of Laxminarayana defendant No.4 was collecting the rents. Defendant No.4 was manager and kartha and was managing during the life time of Sharfaji Neemkar. The details and particulars of the properties were given in the suit and a decree was sought for partition of properties shown in 'A' and 'B' schedules by metes and bounds giving plaintiff No.1 1/7th share by delivery of possession and for payment of rents. About mulgies also separate possession was claimed. Delivery of possession of 'C' schedule property i.e., jewellery was also claimed. It was also prayed that defendants 1,4 to 8 should be directed to account for the rents and to pay the plaintiffs. Costs were also sought. 3. In the written statement relationship was admitted and some admissions were made, Para-5 of the written statement states: