GARLAPATI PRAKASAM Vs. GARLAPATI JAGGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the subject matter of all the three appeals is one and the same they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of the suit in O.S.No.24 of 1986 are that one Garlapati Anthaiah had three sons namely Papaiah, Rajaiah and Narsaiah. There was no evidence to show that Garlapati Anthaiah owned any properties or not but the fact remains that a vast extent of lands roughly 200 acres and buildings stood in the name of Papaiah the eldest son of Anthaiah. Papaiah died in the year 1340 Fasli i.e. around 1930 and Rajaiah and Narsaiah pre-deceased Papaiah. Papaiah had no male issues but had six daughters. Rajaiah had two sons by name Veeraiah and Anthaiah (hereinafter referred to as Junior Anthaiah). Like wise, Veeraiah died in the year 1944 issueless. After Papaiah's death his wife Laxmi Narasamma started managing the properties held by Papaiah and she also died in the year 1952. Thereafter initially the lands were mutated in the name of Junior Antaiah. It is also on record that Jaggaiah, s/o. Narsaiah filed an application on 19-4-52 objecting to the mutation extended in favour of junior Antaiah. While this application was pending before the Tahsildar, Bhongir junior Antaiah died in the year 1954 survived by son Prakash (plaintiff herein). Subsequently, the Tahsildar in his order dated 3-11-1955 held that since Record of Rights Regulation came into force and in Sec., 17 of the Regulation the word PATTEDAR was substituted with the word OCCUPANT and since occupant-wise data has been prepared he has taken the view that he need not give any importance to the succession cases and whomsoever name is shown in Col.13 of the pahani against the survey numbers in the suit will be endorsed as occupant and owner of the land. With the above observation the file was closed by the Tahsildar. Subsequently after the introduction of A.P. Land Ceiling Reforms Act, Jaggaiah (Defendant No.l) filed a declaration under the Act as karta of the joint family consisting of himself, his brother Laxmaiah (Defendant No.2) and his son. The land ceiling authorities allotted one unit each to himself, Laxmaiah and his son. In the land ceiling proceedings Jaggaiah completely eliminated Prakash and no property was shown in his name. In those circumstances the plaintiff i.e. Prakash, s/o Late Junior Antaiah filed the suit seeking partition of the properties and claimed half share in the properties that falls to the share of Rajaiah since Papaiah had no children and he represents the branch of Rajaiah since his brother Veeraiah predeceased Rajaiah, against Jaggaiah and Laxmaiah the two sons of late Narasaiah. The written statement was filed by D-l (Jaggaiah) contending that all the properties are self acquired properties of Papaiah and by virtue of the Will executed by him in 1338 Fasli he succeeded to the estate of late Papaiah to the exclusion of all others in the joint family. D-2 filed written statement contending that himself and D-l are in the joint possession of the properties and at the same time denied any share to the plaintiff. On the above pleadings the court below framed the following issues:

(3.) On behalf of the plaintiffs P.Ws.l to 6 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the defendants D.W.I to D.W.3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-54 were marked. On perusing the entire material brought on record and afer hearing both the parties the court below believed the Will Ex.B-11 said to have been executed by late Papaiah and held that Jaggaiah is entitled to enjoy the property to the exclusion of plaintiff as well as his brother Laxmaiah. On issue No.7 the court below held that both the defendants are not in joint possession of the suit schedule property and only D-l is in possession and enjoyment of the properties. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree while plaintiff filed A.S.1730/91 and D-2 filed A.S.1448/91 to the extent the judgment and decree went against their interests.