KOTHALANKA DURGA VARA PRASADA RAO Vs. DATLA CHANDRAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 552 of 1982 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Bhimavaram laid this appeal seeking for the partition of plaint A & B schedule property, for declaration and for title. The suit was laid under the provisions of Order 33 Code of Civil Procedure (informa pauparis) by the sole Plaintiff as an indigent person. The suit was numbered by the learned Sub-Judge, Bhimavaram. Through the judgment, the trial Court declared that the Plaintiff, the 6th Defendant and the 14th Defendant were entitled to half share in the plaint A schedule property on the death of their mother Kothalanka Kameswaramma and that they should be entitled to the remaining half after the demise of the 7th Defendant. A preliminary decree accordingly was passed for partition of the plaint A schedule property by meats and bounds and for future mesne profits. So far as the B schedule is concerned, the entire suit was dismissed. The trial Court further directed that the Plaintiff shall pay the court fee so far as B schedule property is concerned, while the Plaintiff, the 6th and the 14th Defendants in one set and the other Defendants in other set should bear the court fee in respect of plaint A schedule property in equal halves.

(2.) The Plaintiff laid the present appeal in respect of plaint B schedule property only. He in fact won the suit in respect of plaint A schedule property. The other side contested the decree granted by the trial Court in respect of plaint A schedule property in A.S. No. 174 of 1990. The High Court allowed A.S. No. 174 of 1990 and remanded the case for reconsideration. The Plaintiff filed S.L.P. before the Supreme Court. The same is pending. I confine myself to plaint B schedule property only and would refer to the plaint A schedule property when it is necessary to examine the comprehensive picture only to understand the rival claims and the questions involved.

(3.) The suit was initially laid against Defendants 1 to 7. On the demise of the 2nd Defendant, Defendants 8 to 13 were added. Still later, Defendant No. 14 was brought on record in the suit. Subsequently, the 8th Defendant also died. Defendants 9 to 13, who already came on record, are the Legal Representatives of the 8th Defendant.