G ANNAPURNA Vs. G RAMLINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 2nd plaintiff in O.S.No.40 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nizamabad who was brought on record as the sole legal representative of the deceased minor plaintiff is the appellant.

(2.) The appellant, on behalf of her minor son, filed the suit seeking partition of the half share of her minor son, the plaintiff, in the properties specified in the schedules appended to the plaint, inter-alia alleging that the 1st respondent, her husband, having neglected her and her minor son, the (the plaintiff), had brought and kept the 3rd respondent as his permanent concubine and begot the 2nd respondent through her. After the death of her minor son during the pendency of the suit in the trial court, appellant brought herself on record as 2nd plaintiff in her capacity as his legal representative. The case of the 1st respondent is that all the properties shown in the plaint schedules are not the joint family properties and that some of them are his self-acquired properties. The case of Respondents 2 and 3 is that 1st respondent married 3rd respondent with the consent of the appellant and since all the properties are self-acquired properties of 1st respondent, deceased minor plaintiff has no share therein. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties the trial court held that the lorry shown in the plaint B schedule, and the land in Sy.No.326 and part of Sy.Nos.1296 and 1336, shown in plaint A schedule are the self acquired properties of the 1st respondent, and that 1.34 guntas in Sy.No.1336 and 0.4 guntas in Sy.No.1296 of the plaint A schedule and house bearing No.6-30, i.e., item No.2 of plaint B schedule only are the joint family properties and passed a preliminary decree for partition of only to 1/3rd share in the properties which are held to be joint family properties, on the basis that 2nd respondent as son of respondents 1 and 3 is also entitled to 1/3rd share in the joint family properties.

(3.) This appeal is filed questioning the finding of the trial court that appellant is entitled only to 1/3rd share in the joint family properties, but not on other findings. So, the only point for consideration is the appeal is to what share is the appellant entitled to the joint family properties.