DODLA KUMARASWAMI REDDY Vs. DODLA CHINA ABBAYIREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff appellant against the decreand judgment passed in O.S. No. 138 of 1996 (O.S. No. 92 of 1984 of the Sub-Court Kavali), on 21/02/1991 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kovur.

(2.) The appellant herein is the plaintiff whereas the respondents are the defendants. The status of the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

(3.) The facts that lead to the filing of this appeal, are that the plaintiff originally filed the suit in O.S. No. 92 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kavali, which was subsequently transferred to file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovur and numbered as O.S. No. 136 of 1986, seeking for partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares, for putting the plaintiff in separate possession of one such share, for directing the 1st defendant to render the correct accounts of all the moneys realised by him by selling the lands at Buchireddipalem and Annareddipalem for payment of 1/4 share of the realisation after deducting the amount already paid to the plaintiff and for directing the 1st defendant to render the account in relation to future profits and for payment of 1/4th share to the plaintiff, alleging that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are brothers and all of them are members of the undivided Hindu Joint family. Defendants 2 and 3 came away from Buchireddipalem in or about the year 1942 and they have been residing at Nellore. Similarly, the plaintiff also has been staying outside Buchireddipalem. The 1st defendant has been the manager of the joint family and has been managing the properties and receiving the income therefrom. Plaint-A, B, C, D schedule immovable properties are their ancestral joint family property and all of them have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. On account of dissensions among the brothers, they agreed on 1-1-1982 to divide A, B, C schedule properties and to sell the D schedule property to divide the sale proceeds and also the sale proceeds of the lands sold at Annareddipalem and Buchireddipalem equally and to look into the accounts. It was also agreed that the persons who received money in excess of their share should pay it to others and also to execute a family arrangement deed within one year. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 signed in that agreement. Subsequent to the above agreement, the 1st defendant sold some more lands at Buchireddipalem and received the entire consideration thereof. He has been in possession of the same. The plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 requested the 1st defendant to divide the properties and for separate possession of the respective shares. The 3rd defendant got issued a notice on 16.3.1984 in that regard. The 1st defendant neither replied nor complied with the demand made in the notice. The defendants failed to co-operate with the plaintiff. Defendants 4 and 5 relinquished their rights in relation to their share in the estate of their father. They ceased to have any interest and that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 alone are entitled to the suit property.