PASAM THIRUPATHAMMA Vs. PASAM VENKATAREDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three appeals arise out of common judgment. A.S.NO. 1001/76 arises against the decree in O.S.No.91/74 laid by Pasam Venkata Reddy, the 1st respondent. A.S.No.872/78 arises against the decree in O.S.No.31/76 filed by Pasam Subbareddi, the 2nd respondent in A.S.No. 1001/76. A.S.No.545/79 arises against the decree in O.S.No.1/76 filed by the appellant against the 2nd respondent. The suits, O.S.No.91/74 is for partition and O.S.NO. 1/76 for perpetual injunction, have been decreed and the suit, O.S.No.31/76 was dismissed. As against these decrees, the above appeal have been filed by the 2nd defendant..

(2.) The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No. 91/74 is as follows: One Pasam Pedarami Reddy had two sons, viz., the plaintiff and Pasam China Ramireddy. Pasma Chinarami Reddy has two sons, viz., the 1st defendant Subbareddy and husband of the. 2nd defendant, viz., Papi Reddyl Peda Ramireddy was looking after the properties. After his demise, his 2nd son China Ramireddy was looking after the properties. After the latter's death, till Subba Reddy became major, the plaintiff was in management. Thereafter, he handed over the management to the 1st defendant. After the death of Papi Reddy, there arose disputes and his right to a share was denied. Therefore, he filed the suit for partition claiming half share.

(3.) The 2nd defendant filed a written statement contending that in 1944 Pedarami Reddy died and that even as early as in 1922 the plgintiff was taken by his paternal aunt, wife of Arikatla China Appireddy of Ambapuram. Thereafter, the plaintiff has been living continuously with them having been adopted by them. Arikatla China Appireddy executed Ex.B-5 registered will, equivalent to Ex.A-7 dated 4.9.1922. Therein he has expressed in unequivocal terms that the plaintiff is the adopted son of Arikatla China Appireddy and he bequeathed all his properties to the plaintiff. The circumstances under which the adoption was made also have been stated therein. The plaintiff had inherited the properties of Arikatla Chinna Appireddy and another aunt also gave properties and he has been continuously living in the family of his adoptive father and he thereby ceased to be the member of the joint family of the defendants. The 1st defendant and Papireddy and their father have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties in their own right as members of the joint family and, therefore, the plaintiff has no right to claim partition.