SURYADEVARA PULLAYYA Vs. SURYADEVARA SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment of the Court of Subordinate Judge dismissing O.S. No. 279 of 1983. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the properties shown in the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedules into two equal shares by metes and bounds and for putting the plaintiffs in separate possession of one such share. In this appeal the parties are referred as per their status in the suit. The case set up in the plaint is as follows.

(2.) The second plaintiff is the wife of one Ananthayya and the first plaintiff is his son. Ananthayya and Satyanarayana, the sole defendant, are brothers. It is the allegation that they constituted Hindu Joint Family and Ananthayya died on 5-3-1983 intestate and undivided with the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to half share in the joint family properties. It is also stated that the first plaintiff's grandfather Basavayya had three sons, namely, Jaggayya, Ananthayya and Satyanarayana. When the defendant was minor, during the lifetime of Basavayya, eldest son Jaggayya got separated from the joint family and thereafter Basavayya and his two younger sons, Ananthayya and Satyanarayana continued to be joint. Basavayya died in 1955 and even thereafter Ananthayya and Satyanarayana continued to be joint and defendant was managing the joint family properties as Ananthayya was of very weak intellect. He, however, used to do hardwork attending to cultivation and other agricultural operations. With the income of the joint family properties other properties were purchased from time to time, but the defendant obtained sale deeds in his name or in the name of himself and his brother. The second plaintiff was a dumb woman and therefore she was exploited by putting her to hard work. Therefore, the father of the second plaintiff took her along with the first plaintiff to his house and since then she has been under protection and maintenance of her father and after her father's death her brother is taking care of them. The first plaintiff was assisting his maternal dumb uncle Subbayya in agricultural operations besides helping Ananthayya and Satyanarayana in such operations. He was having cordial relations with them. Out of surplus joint family funds the defendant spent considerable amounts for marriage of his first daughter and the first plaintiff did not object to it because of his love and affection for the daughter of the defendant. The first plaintiff with the approval of his father has been requesting the defendant to partition the joint family properties but the defendant has been postponing it. As the defendant is evading to co-operate with the plaintiffs in effecting partition even after the death of Ananthayya, the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of joint family properties.

(3.) The defendant opposed the suit claim by filing a written statement as follows. The eldest brother of Ananthayya and defendant by name Jaggayya got himself separated long before the death of Basavayya . After the death of Basavayya the defendant and Ananthayya lived together jointly. In 1956 the defendant and Ananthayya partitioned their joint family properties and since then they have been separately living and enjoying the properties exclusively and separately. After partition in 1956 Ananthayya began to live with his father-in-law along with the plaintiffs at the instance of second plaintiff, who is intelligent even though she is dumb. By the time of partition between him and his brother the joint family was having debts to an amount of Rs. 3,000.00 which include the amount payable towards 'pasupukumkuma' to their three sisters which was utilised by the joint family. By that time the defendant was not married and the defendant's mother was to be maintained. Therefore, relatives and mediators suggested that the defendant should discharge family debts and maintain his mother. Accordingly, major share was given to the defendant which was agreed to by the first plaintiff's father. In the said partition an extent of Acs. 1.49 in D.Nos. 16 and 15/1 of Mogulur village fell to the share of father of the first plaintiff, which had been in exclusive possession and enjoyment since the time of partition. At that time, the value of the lands was even less than Rs. 300.00 per acre. The land given to Ananthayya was more in value than the land, which fell to the share of the defendant. The defendant was given an extent of Acs. 8.48 to his share besides house-site of Acs. 0.12. Subsequently, the defendant sold Acs. 1.60 in D.No. 6 of Battinapadu village to Neetam Butchaiah about seven years back and the defendant purchased Acs. 0.06 of hayrick yard in R.S. No. 66/4 shown in item 3 of plaint 'A' schedule properties. The defendant also denied that items 4,5, 6, 7, 9,10,11,17,18, 19 and 20 of plaint 'A' schedule are joint family properties stating that he himself purchased these properties out of his income. He also stated that item 1 of plaint A schedule is given to the defendant's eldest sister Rukminamma towards Pasupu Kumkuma. He also stated that the land admeasuring Acs. 2.72 in R.S.No. 102 of Kunikanapadu village shown as item 13 is the property of defendant's mother who executed a Will dated 8-7-1964 bequeathing the property giving equal shares to Ananthayya and Satyanarayana but giving only life interest to Ananthayya. After the death of his mother, Pullamma, Ananthayya and Satyanarayana have been enjoying their respective shares in item No. 13. After the death of Ananthayya, the defendant has been exclusively enjoying the said item of the property. There is no joint family status between the defendant and the first plaintiff's father as they had already partitioned their joint family properties in 1956. The defendant also denied the correctness of the plaint A and B schedules stating that there are no movable properties shown as joint family properties. All the movable properties were possessed by the defendant as own properties and the plaintiffs or Ananthayya cannot have any right to claim share in them. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the suit.