UDDAGIRI CHALAMA RAJU Vs. UDDAGIRI SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. For the sake of convenience, they are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the plaintifs are the father and son and the defendants are also father and sons. Plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant No. 1 are brothers and sons of late Komaraju. At the time of death of Komaraju, the respondent No. 1 was ten years old and the appellant No. 1 was five years old. So, they were taken away by their maternal uncle and were brought up by him. When they grew up they came back to their village and were looking after their joint family properties. At the time of their father's death, they have Acs. 62-00 of land and business and that they inherited and continued the family business. They have earned about Acs. 200-00. They were mostly doing business in paddy, cotton and other ordinary commodities. Differences arose between the brothers. Therefore, they referred the dispute to mediators. The mediators have divided the property. Thereafter, Ex. A-1 Khararnama was executed on 6-12-1957. As per the Khararnama defendant No. 1 was granted Acs. 12-00 excess in addition to the half share towards the services rendered by him to the family and for developing the family properties. Later, as there was a dispute regarding the Acs. 12-00, it was made to Acs. 18-00. Thereafterwards, the present suit was filed stating that the partition was not equally made and allotment of Acs. 12-00, which was made to Acs. 18-00, is unequally made and allotment of Jesta Bhaga is obsolete under Hindu Law and therefore he has to get a share in the excess land. Therefore, the suit is filed for the half share in Acs. 18-00 of A Schedule property apart from a share in B Schedule property.

(3.) THE defendants filed written statement stating that the partition was made by the mediators after settling the entire dispute and taking all the facts into consideration. The allotment of additional property to the share of first defendant was on the ground that he has served the family by putting more efforts than the plaintiffs and earned vast properties to the family. Therefore, it cannot be said as illegal and invalid. The said partition was acted upon and the suit was filed in 1963 after a long time. There are no merits in the suit and the same is liable to be dismissed.