JONNADA SUBASH Vs. JONNADA VITHALACHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second Appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful defendants in both the Courts below. Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, the learned Counsel representing the appellants had urged the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to repartition when partition already had taken place between the sharers after the death of Ramachari ? 2. Whether the findings relating to the plea of adverse possession and ouster be sustained especially in the light of the fact that these are two different concepts and there is no specific plea relating to ouster in this regard ? 3. Whether the presumption in favour of jointness weakens especially in relation to children representing two wives of a person ? Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, the Counsel representing the appellants had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court and had pointed out that though there is no specific plea of ouster, certain findings in relation thereto had been given and the plea of adverse possession is something different from the plea of ouster. The learned Counsel while elaborating his submissions had explained these two concepts. The Counsel also would maintain that these are two branches representing two wives and in such a case, the presumption after passage of time would be definitely weakened and cannot be so strong and this aspect was lost sight of. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in A.S.No.397/87. The Counsel also would maintain that the appellate Court had not recorded reasons in detail and in this view of the matter, it is a fit case where an order of remand may have to be made.

(2.) On the contrary, Sri Venkata Rama Rao, the learned Counsel had taken this Court through the findings which had been recorded by both the Courts below and had submitted that while confirming the findings of the trial Court, the appellate Court need not record the reasons in detail again which would be just repetitive, but if the aspects had been considered and had been confirmed that would be sufficient and in this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the appellate Court had committed any illegality in this regard warranting an order of remand. The Counsel also had explained that the plea of prior partition set up by the other side had been disbelieved by both the Courts below and it being a question of fact, the same cannot be disturbed in the Second Appeal. The Counsel also had explained that when the parties are representing two wings just representing the wives of the same person and especially when the plea of partition raised by the defendants had been disbelieved, the Courts below are well justified in decreeing the suit and hence the said findings need no disturbance at the hands of this Court. The Counsel had placed reliance on PRAGADA VENKATA KAMA JAGGARAO AND OTHERS Vs. BONDALAM VENKATA JAGANNADHAMMA ALIAS ATTEYYA, P.LAKSHMI REDDY Vs. L.LAKSHMI REDDY and GUR NARAIN DAS Vs. GUR TAHAL DAS in this regard.

(3.) Respondents in the Second Appeal as plaintiffs instituted the suit O.S.No.494/98 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad West & South, Ranga Reddy District against the defendants for partition of the plaint schedule properties.