M KISHAN RAO Vs. P SAVITRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals and one cross-objection therein are between the same parties and accordingly they are disposed of through a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to, as arrayed in A.S. No. 806 of 1997. One Madhavaram Venkaiah held about three residential houses in Kukatpally Revenue Village, Ranga Reddy District, and fairly large extent of agricultural land in that village. His wife is Laxmamma, the 3rd respondent herein. They had a son, Kishan Rao, the appellant herein, and daughter, Savitri, who is since dead, and is represented by her daughter, Shashikala, and son, Ramchandra Rao, respondents 1 and 2, herein.

(2.) During her lifetime, Savitri, and her children, respondents 1 and 2 herein, filed O.S. No. 402 of 1987 in the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. She pleaded that the properties are ancestral in nature and her father died on 16-04-1989. Apart from claiming 1/3rd share in the ancestral properties, she has also demanded for a share in the properties, that would have fallen to the share of her father, in 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. She rested her claim upon the provisions of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act (for short 'the Amendment Act'). According to her, the appellant herein did not effect partition, in spite of repeated demands.

(3.) The suit was mainly contested by the appellant. According to him, there was a larger joint family, comprising of his grand-father Venkat Kistaiah, his father, Venkaiah and uncles Ramulu and Narsimlu, and in a partition that took place in the year 1956, himself and his father were given one share, and that his sister does not have any right over the same. His further plea was that at the time of marriage of Savitri, adequate properties in the form of gold and other ornaments were given and even under the Amendment Act, she is not entitled for any share, as her marriage was performed, by the time the amendment came into force.