MAGULURI RAMA KOTI Vs. MAGULURI SEGGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Smt. Malleswari, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri Gopala Krishnamacharyulu, the learned Counsel representing the respondent.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the petitioner-second defendant in IA No.164/ 97 in OS No.56/63 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki. The revision petitioner as petitioner had filed 1A No. 164/97 in OS No.56/63 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, under Order XX, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for the passing of additional supplementary preliminary decree for partition in view of the changed circumstances and also the passing of final decree. The case of the revision petitioner is that he is the eldest son to his father, the first defendant in the suit through the first wife; and the respondent in the CRP.- the plaintiff in the suit, is the son through the second wife. In the said suit, a preliminary decree was passed for partition of the plaintiff schedule properties into three equal shares and however, subsequent thereto, there was partition of the property by mediation. The revision petitioner, in the light of the fact that his father died subsequent thereto on 12.7.1993, on the ground of changed circumstances, had filed the aforesaid application for passing of supplementary preliminary decree and consequential final decree. The respondent-plaintiff had taken a stand that there was partition of joint family properties in the presence of mediators even in the year 1971, and the respective parties have been in exclusive possession of their respective shares and pattedar pass books have also been issued and on 23.6.1984, first defendant, father of the parties, had executed a registered Will bequeathing of his properties in favour of respondent-plaintiff, his wife and son. It was also further stated that the petitioner had filed a similar application for the selfsame relief and the same was rejected and hence, the petition itself is not maintainable.

(3.) On the respective contentions of the parties, four points for determination were framed and PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked, and RWs.l to 5 were examined and Exs.Bl to B25 were marked. The Court below in paragraph Nos,8 to 12 had discussed the points for consideration and had ultimately negatived the relief sought and aggrieved by the same, the present CRP is filed.