PURETI MADDULATAMMA DIED Vs. PURETI GURAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.22/ 85 on the file of Subordinate Judge. Proddatur. The 2nd appellant who is brought on record as the legal representative of the first appellant in C.M.P. No.23149/99 is now prosecuting the present litigation. The second appellant was brought on record on the strength of a will dated 2.3.1988 executed by the first appellant who died on 13.3.1988. It may be stated here itself that at the time when the second appellant was brought on record in this proceeding, no enquiry was held relating to the aspect of the validity or otherwise of the will. It is also brought to my notice that there are other legal representatives also and but for the will the other legal representatives also should have been brought on record. But because of the will dated 2.3.1988, the second appellant alone was brought on record. The plaintiff had instituted the suit for partition claiming l/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties and for a direction to direct the defendants/ respondents to put the first appellant-plaintiff in separate possession of her share and for future mesne profits and for costs of the suit.

(2.) The parties are referred to as 'plaintiff and 'defendants' for the purpose of convenience.

(3.) The pleadings of the respective parties are as follows: One P. Bala Gurumurthy had four sons and during his life time, his first one Pullaiah and the second Balaiah divided from him and left the joint family and they have been living separately and they have nothing to do with the suit properties. Bala Guru Murthy lived with his wife plaintiff and defendants who are his sons. He acquired the suit properties out of his own funds and by his self efforts and earnings. Suit properties are self-acquired properties of Bala Gurumurthy. After his death, plaintiff and defendants lived together and enjoyed the suit properties. He died in the year 1977 leaving behind his wife plaintiff and defendants as sole heirs. He did not execute any will or settle the properties in favour of anybody. Since three years defendants and their wives have been ill-treating plaintiff. They are demanding her to relinquish her 1/3rd rights in the suit properties. Plaintiff refused to execute documents. She has been demanding defendants to partition the suit properties into three equal shares and give separate possession of her 1/3rd share. Defendants have been evading to do so. In one year mediators Pedda Thirumala Kondaiah, A. Ranganayakulu and others advised defendants to separate the properties and give plaintiffs share. They promised to do so, but subsequently refused to do so. Defendants are planning to create some documents in their favour as if plaintiff executed them voluntarily. In these state of affairs, it is not desirable to continue to have joint status with the defendants. Hence the plaintiff is filing the suit for partition.