R V PADMAVATHI Vs. GANGARAPU SUDARSANA CHOWDARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed by the 1st plaintiff and 12th defendant in O.S.No. 24 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. The suit was one filed for partition of the schedule properties.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the schedule properties belongs to one R. Venkata Swamy Naidu, who died on 28.12.1953 leaving behind his wife Achamma and four sons and four daughters. The 1st plaintiff is one of the daughters. The sons are Rama Swamy Naidu whose heirs are defendants 1 to 6 and another son Guru Swamy Naidu, whose heir is the 7th defendant and another son Ranga Swamy Naidu, who is said to have gone in adoption in the year, 1925 and died leaving behind his wife defendant No. 11, who also died subsequently, another son is Rama Murthy, defendant No. 8. The daughters are Seethamma, the 1st plaintiff, another Sundaramma and defendant No. 9. The 2nd plaintiff is said to be the son of Seethamma. The 1st plaintiff and Sundaramma are said to be unmarried and Sundaramma also died unmarried. The suit schedule properties are the family properties.

(3.) According to the case of the plaintiffs, after the death of Venkata Swamy Naidu on 28.12.1953 as an undivided coparceners, his 1/4th share along with the other three sons excluding the adopted son defendant No. 7 Ranga Swamy Naidu devolved on Achamma, the adoption of the 3rd son Ranga Swamy Naidu in 1925 was evidenced by a registered adoption deed and therefore, he has no right in the family properties as he has waived all the rights in the natural family. The 1st son Rama Swamy Naidu died in 1963 even before the death of his mother. The 2nd son Venkata Swamy Naidu died in 1960 and 8th defendant is only surviving son of the late Venkata Swamy Naidu. The eldest daughter Seethamma died on 19.02.1967 and the legal representatives are 2nd plaintiff and defendants 10 to 13. The mother of the 1st plaintiff having inherited to the joint 1/4th share of her husband along with the three sons, her rights have enlarged into absolute rights under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act (for short, 'the Act') and the plaintiffs and other heirs have become entitled to her property as co-sharers. When the plaintiffs got issued a notice, a reply was given by defendant No. 8 with false allegations. A specific allegation was made in para No. 9 of the plaint that the plaintiffs are not claiming any share in the suit properties through late Venkata Swamy Naidu, but only through the estate of Achamma whose rights have enlarged into absolute rights. The defendants pleaded a partition, which was not true and the 1st plaintiff is not married. Thereafter, by virtue of an amendment, in I.A. No. 531 of 1989 a plea was taken that by virtue of the A.P. Act 13 of 1986 the plaintiff being a daughter, who is unmarried, has got the status of a coparcener and has got equal rights in the family properties along with the male members. Therefore her another sister Sundaramma would get equal rights along with their brothers and consequently, the 1st plaintiff claimed the share of 1/180+140/540 on her behalf and on behalf of the 2nd plaintiff and both of them put together claimed share of 143/540 share, defendant Nos. 1 to 6 are entitled for a share of 105/540, defendant No. 7 to a share of 90/540, defendant No. 8 to a share of 140/540, defendant No. 9 to a share of 50/540 and defendants 10 to 13 to a share of 12/540. The legal representatives of the 10th defendant and defendants 11 and 13 were brought on record after their death. The property is not divided and therefore, the plaintiffs filed suit for the share in the estate of her mother for partition of the property. As there was no co-operation for partition, the suit was filed. The plaintiffs also claimed for mesne profits.