KAKUMANI SUBBA RAO Vs. KAKUMANI VENKATESWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole plaintiff filed the present appeal. His father was the first defendant and his younger brothers were defendants 2 and 3. After filing of the appeal, his father died. His mother, consequently, was brought on record as respondent No.4 in the appeal. I shall refer to the parties as they were arrayed in the suit and shall refer to the fourth respondent as she is arrayed in the appeal, as she was not a party to the suit. The suit consisted of A to E schedule properties. The plaint consists of A & B schedules only. A schedule property consists of 15 items of immovable property. B schedule property consists of gold, jewellery and other movables. C schedule is the property cited by the second defendant as part of the joint family property. D schedule property is house property, which is cited by the third defendant as part of the joint family property. E schedule property, also cited by the third defendant, is cash of Rs.1,12,000/-.

(2.) The plaintiff sought for partition of plaint A & B schedule properties into four equal shares between himself and defendants 1 to 3 by metes and bounds and for allotment of one such share to each of them. He did not seek for partition plaints C, D & E schedule properties. It can be culled out from his oral evidence that he is claiming exclusive title to plaint D schedule property.

(3.) The defendants primarily claimed partition of suit A to D schedule properties. The learned trial judge granted a decree of partition of suit A & D schedule properties thus decreeing the suit in respect of D schedule properties also in equal shares. Plaintiff preferred the present appeal assailing the judgment of the trial court in respect of partition of suit D schedule properties between the plaintiff and the other defendants. The plaintiff claims exclusive title to this plaint D schedule property.