IDDUM BALAMANI Vs. KATUM RAMNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the un-successful first defendant who died pending appeal and appellant Nos.2 and 3 were brought on record.

(2.) Introduction: The first respondent in the appeal, who is plaintiff in the suit filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and deliver possession of one such share to her and for rendition of accounts. The learned Subordinate Judge, Rajam recorded the evidence of P.W.1, D.Ws.1 to 5, marked Exs.A-1 and A-2 and Ex.B-1 to B-36 and ultimately granted a preliminary decree for partition. Hence, the appeal.

(3.) Submissions of Sri Koka Raghava Rao: Sri Koka Raghava Rao, learned counsel representing the appellants had taken this court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the issues settled and the evidence of P.W.1 and D.Ws.1 to 5 and would contend that the alleged settlement deed was never acted upon and by virtue of the relinquishment, the appellant/first defendant became the owner of all these properties and hence, the relief granted in favour of the plaintiff cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also would contend that even, otherwise, in the light of the evidence of D.W.3, inasmuch as the relinquishment of the shares had been established, granting the relief of partition even in favour of the other defendants, definitely, cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also would contend that the findings recorded by the learned Judge that inasmuch as there is no acceptable evidence placed on record relating to the date of death of Chandramma, it can be taken that all the parties would be entitled to the respective shares also cannot be sustained. The learned counsel made certain submissions in relation to the other oral and documentary evidence, which would go to show that the settlement deed was not yet and was not acted upon.