P RAJULU GOUD Vs. P JEEVAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a partition suit filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein against the appellants. The 4th plaintiff (R4 in the appeal) is the mother of plaintiffs 1 to 3 (Rl to R3) who are minor sons. The 1st appellant (Dl in the suit) is the father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and husband of 4th plaintiff. The 2nd appellant (D2 in the suit) is the mother of the 1st appellant. The other two appellants are the brothers of the 1st appellant and they are D3 and D4 in the suit. The suit is for partition of the properties in plaint A, B and C schedules. 'A' schedule is a house constructed with the site purchased by the father of D-l late Sri Sattaiah Goud and in which he and his sons' families were living till his death in 1976. In that, the plaintiffs-respondents claimed 4/5th share out of l/4th share held by the 1st defendant. 'B' schedule is also a house. It was constructed by the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs have claimed 4/5th share therein. 'C' schedule is the business of the 'Kirana Stores' being run by the 1st defendant. In the 'C' schedule also, 4/5th share is claimed. 4th plaintiff is also claiming a share in the alleged joint family properties in view of the fact that she is entitled to the share of the pre-deceased son. The learned Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad passed a preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to 4/5h share in 'B' and 'C' schedule properties and business. As far as 'A' schedule is concerned, the decree is in two parts: (i) that the plaintiffs are entitled to get 4/ 5th share out of 1 / 4th share of the 1st defendant in the 'A' schedule property and (ii) that the plaintiffs are also entitled to get in addition to the above, 4/5th share out of 1 /6th share of the 1st defendant which he inherited from his father. At this stage, it may he clarified that the reason for declaring only l/6th share of the 1st defendant which he is entitled by way of inheritance from the father is that the father left behind leaving four sons and two daughters (not parties herein). A preliminary decree was passed accordingly.

(2.) It is unfortunate that no one has appeared for the respondents. Though Sri Narendar Kumar, advocate has filed vakalat after obtaining the consent from the previous advocate Sri G. V. R. Mohan Rao, the Counsel has not appeared. Even after the appeal was partly heard, the same was adjourned to the next day in the hope that there will be representation on behalf of the respondents. As no one turned up, I posted the case for judgment and the delivery of judgment was postponed by one day again in the hope that the respondents' Counsel will be present. As the respondents and their Counsel have been continuously absent, I have no option but to dispose of the old appeal after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. I must say that the learned Counsel for the appellant, Ms. C. Poornaiah and V.L.N.G.K. Murthy presented and argued the case in a spirit of assisting the Court and placed all the aspects pro and contra to the appellant's case. I have also carefully gone through the pleadings and evidence. It is unfortunate that the pleadings and the judgment are quite unsatisfactory in this case.

(3.) The issue framed in the suit is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition of the plaint schedule properties and the same was answered in favour of the plaintiffs. The relief as mentioned above was granted.