MALLADI RAMAKRISHNA RAO Vs. MALLADISESHARATHNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are filed by Defendant No.7 in O.S.No.275/1979 and Defendant No.4 in O.S.No.84 of 1985 i.e., Malladi Ramakrishna Rao, on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, against the decrees and Common Judgment passed in the above two suits dated 08.04.1991, whereunder both the suits are decreed for partition of 1/5 th share in 'A' and 'E' schedule property and Item No.1 of Plaint 'B' Schedule Property and other reliefs. For convenience of reference, the parties to the appeals are ranked as arrayed in O.S.No.275 of 1979 by the I Additional Subordinate Judge at Kakinada, through out the judgment. The Defendant Nos. 5 and 9 in O.S.No.275 of 1979 by name Jayanthi Subbalakshmi and Duvvuri Nagamani filed O.S.No.84 of 1985 claiming partition of the plaint schedule property. 7 th Defendant in O.S.No.275 of 1979 and 4 th defendant in O.S.No.84 of 1985 alone filed the present appeals claiming right in Item No.1 of Plaint 'B' Schedule property in O.S.No.275 of 1979 i.e., house door bearing No.54 -6 -22, which is containing 12 rooms and site. The said property is not a part of schedule in O.S.No.84 of 1985. Malladi Sesharatnam is the wife of Venkatramaiah (who is the paternal grand son of D.1). Malladi Sesharatnam filed a suit for partition claiming 1/8 th share in 'A to D' schedule property contending that schedule property belonging to joint family and her husband died on 01.08.1979 under suspicious circumstances while continuing as member of the hindu joint family. First defendant is a manager of hindu joint family consisting of herself, her husband and defendant Nos. 1 to 3. Plaintiff's husband is the only son of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and the 1 st defendant is his paternal grand father. Her marriage with Venkataramaiah took place at Kapileswarapuram at Kakinada. Due to differences between plaintiff, her husband and first defendant, she is living separately along with her husband.

(2.) THE schedule property is the joint family property of all the members including the husband of the plaintiff. After the death of her husband - Venkataramaiah, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 neglected the plaintiff completely. Consequent upon the death of her husband, she became entitled to share of her husband in joint family property, who died intestate, and the plaintiff and 3 rd defendant are only the legal heirs of deceased Venkataramaiah. She requested through mediators including the grand father of the plaintiff for amicable partition, the defendants did not cooperate for partition of schedule property. Therefore, she filed the suit for partition of 'A to D' schedule property into 8 shares and allot one such share to her.

(3.) DEFENDANT No.1 filed Written Statement denying the material allegations of the plaint in O.S.No.275 of 1979 disputing the right of the plaintiff and nature of property. But this appeal is unconcerned with the pleas of first defendant with regard to other items, I am confining to note down the specific plea of defendant No.1 with regard to Item No.1 of Plaint 'B' Schedule property. In Para No.9 of the Written Statement, he specifically contended that the plaintiff has no right in Item No.1 of Plaint 'B' Schedule property and even the defendants have no right to seek partition since it is not the joint family property. The property was purchased by Jayanthi Venkateswarlu and others under a registered Sale Deed dated 27.02.1971 and it is a separate property of Jayanthi Venkateswarlu and others. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share in Item No.1 of Plaint 'B' Schedule property.