KALLAM MANGAMMA Vs. BONTHU LAKSHMI SARADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Yallabandi Ramatirtha, learned counsel for revision-petitioner and Sri M.Chalapati Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

(2.) The contention of the revision-petitioner is that the property under dispute was bequeathed to her by her father late Madhusudhana Reddy and the Gift Deeds executed in the year 1981 prior to the partition between Madhusudhana Reddy and his son i.e., defendant No.2 in the suit. Therefore, the revisionpetitioner acquires right by bar of limitation and the same is sought to be taken away by amending of the pleading, it would cause prejudice to the right of the revision-petitioner and such an amendment would defeat the accrued right in favour of the revision-petitioner.

(3.) The contention of the respondents/plaintiffs is that they filed the suit for Declaration that plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are ancestral properties of their grandfather Madhusudhana Reddy and their father i.e., defendant No.2 in the suit and therefore, their paternal grandfather cannot alienate the ancestral property affecting the rights of other coparcener and hence, they filed the suit for Declaration that plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties and for partition of the properties. The further contention of the respondents is that, the revision-petitioner, who is defendant No.1 in the suit, filed written statement contending that Madhusudhana Reddy bequeathed the plaint schedule properties in favour of the defendant No.1 i.e., his daughter under Gift Deeds executed in the year 198; therefore, the plaintiffs were advised to amend the plaint seeking relief of 'Declaration' that the alleged Gift Deeds executed by Madhusudhana Reddy are not binding on the plaintiffs to the extent of his share.