CHIEF MANAGER PERSONNEL AND HRD SECTION STATE BANK OF INDIA ZONALOFFICE TIRUPATHI CHITTOOR DISTRICT Vs. K LAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant, who filed the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.1994 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Markapur in O.S.No.93 of 1987. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's half share in the plaint A and B schedule properties and for future profits and costs.

(2.) The facts lie in a narrow compass: The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers and members of a Joint Hindu family. Their father by name Pullaiah died in the year 1969 leaving no ancestral properties. He had four sons. The eldest and the second son got themselves divided and left the family. The plaintiff and the defendant continued as the members of the joint family even subsequent to the death of their father and continued the Coffee powder business. They also started Ice fruit manufacturing business in the year 1980. The Coffee Powder business thrived well and they could make substantial profits out of their business. They acquired thus plaint A and B schedule properties, which are their joint properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant used to maintain the accounts and manipulate various transactions and vouchers to get over the income tax difficulties. He was not only the manager of the family, but had full control over the affairs of the family and used to dictate terms and exercise undue influence over the plaintiff .The plaintiff used to obey the defendant implicitly. By exercising his dominating position, the defendant even obtained the signatures of the plaintiff on some vouchers on the ground of income-tax difficulty. Since the attitude of the defendant caused much inconvenience to the plaintiff, he wanted to divide from the defendant and requested him to separate his half share in the plaint A and B schedule properties. As the defendant grew wild and refused, the plaintiff ultimately filed the suit.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit by filing his written statement mentioning inter alia that the plaintiff and the defendant divided the properties both immovable and movable in the year 1986-87 and since then they have been living separately. All the properties mentioned in the plaint B schedule belong to the defendant and the plaintiff has no share or interest therein. Item No.1 of the plaint 'A' schedule was purchased in the name of the defendant originally, but both the plaintiff and defendant after having applied jointly for permission to the Gram Panchayat, Giddalur spent some amount for its construction. After the division of properties, the amount spent till then was taken into account and it was allotted to the share of the defendant in the said division. Thereafter the defendant spent huge amounts and completed the construction The accounts maintained in regard thereto were in the hand writing of the plaintiff himself and he endorsed therein that he ceased to have any right therein. Item No.2 of the plaint schedule was allotted to the defendant and item No.3 was allotted to the plaintiff. Similarly item No.4 of the A schedule although was purchased in the name of the defendant, and construction was made with joint family funds, fell to the share of the plaintiff. Items 5 and 7 were also allotted to the plaintiff and item No.6 fell to the share of the defendant. Item 8 of the 'A' schedule was purchased jointly by the plaintiff and defendant and the same was kept joint and has to be divided yet. Evidencing the partition, a Memorandum of partition was reduced in to writing on stamp paper and both the parties signed thereon. The plaintiff took one copy. Since the defendant had to leave for Vellur for the treatment of his son urgently his copy had to be remained in the custody of one Thummalapenta Venkata Subbaiah who was one of the mediators for partition. Pursuant to the said division, the plaintiff applied to the Gram Panchayat, Giddalur on 06.07.1987 for mutation of his name in respect of item No.4 of the plaint 'A' schedule and the defendant gave his consent for the mutation. The movable properties were also divided between the parties and in the said division, items 1 to 9, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20 to 23, 26 to 28, 30 and 31 of the plaint 'B' schedule fell to the share of the defendant and items which were not shown in the 'B' schedule which have equivalent value fell to the share of the plaintiff. Items 10, 13 to 16, 19, 24, 25, 29 and 32 of the 'B' schedule were purchased by the defendant with his own funds after partition. Items 33 and 34 belong to his wife and item 35 belongs to the defendant.Without dividing, the Streedhana articles other items were taken in to account and adjusted in the partition. Evidencing the same a chit was prepared by the sister's husband of the plaintiff and the defendant by name D.V.Subba Rao. As regards the business articles which were divided between the parties on 1-8-1987 a paper was prepared by the plaintiff himself in his own handwriting. Subsequent to the said division, the machinery was also valued and the defendant paid the value thereof to he plaintiff since it fell to his share in the said division. Item 36 of the 'B' schedule had also fallen to the share of the defendant. Both of them had 1/7th share on Sri Padma Finance Corporation, Giddalur and that it fell to the share of the plaintiff.Thus the suit is frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed.