MADASU VENKATASUBBARAO Vs. MADASU CHENCHAMMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Madasu Chenchamma, wife of one Yellamanda and Balisetty Venkataramanamma, their daughter filed the suit for partition of plaint A schedule properties into nine shares and allotment of four such shares to them and also praying for a decree for past profits and other suitable reliefs. The said Madasu Chenchamma died pending Appeal on 22-4-2002 and a memo dated 22-7-2002 was filed to record her daughter as the sole legal representative. The learned Judge recorded the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, D.W.1 to D.W.4, marked Exs.A-1, A-2 and B-1 to B-21 and ultimately decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st defendant Madasu Venkata Subbarao preferred the present Appeal.

(2.) Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, the learned Counsel representing the appellant/1st defendant had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and would contend that the joint family properties are not liable for partition inasmuch as there was prior partition. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the oral and documentary evidence available on record and had assailed the findings on several grounds. The learned Counsel also would submit that the fact that originally these properties were the family properties of Ragaiah is not in serious dispute and inasmuch as Ragaiah died leaving behind Yellamanda, the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the 2nd plaintiff and Madasu Venkata Subbarao, the 1st defendant and Akula Rathamma, the 4th defendant in the suit, in the 1/3rd share of Ragaiah all these three children of Ragaiah would be entitled to claim shares i.e., 1/3rd each in the 1/3rd to which Ragaiah would be entitled to. The learned Counsel would point out that the decree which had been granted by the learned Judge as prayed for in relation to the shares cannot be sustained since the same would be on higher side.

(3.) Sri Srinivas, the learned Counsel representing the 2nd respondent who was recorded as the legal representative of the deceased 1st respondent, 1st plaintiff in the suit, would contend that no such plea had been taken in the written statement and they are putting forth such a contention before this Court. The learned Counsel would point out that in the light of the reasons in detail recorded by the learned Judge, the shares which had been worked out and ultimately granted need not be disturbed by this Court.