VELURI SITARAMASASTRY Vs. ISUKAPALLI SUNDARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Veluri Gopalakrishna Murthy filed O. S. No. 17 of 1948 in the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Eluru praying for partition of plaint Schedule properties and for separate possession of his share. His brother, Veluri Seetharama Sastry, filed O. S. No. 18 of 1948 for partition & for separate possession of his share. Each of them asked for share out of joint family property which originally belonged to the joint family of their father. V. Buchanna Sastry (V. B. S.) and three sons including the two plaintiffs. The learned Subordinate Judge tried the two suits together and awarded a decree regarding certain items. Krishnarnurty filed A. S. No. 105 of 1953 and Seetharama Sastry filed A. S. No. 180 of 1953 in the District Court, West Godavari. The learned Additional District Judge, West Godavari heard the two appeals together and passed a common judgment in which he held that the alienations under two documents (Exs. B. 20 and B. 19) regarding item 9 in the B schedule in O. S. No. 17 of 1948 (which is item 6 in plaint B schedule in O. S. No. 18 of 1948) were not valid and binding on the plaintiffs and he awarded a decree for partition and for separate possession to each plaintiff of one eighth share of this item. Seetharamasastry filed S. A. No. 750 of 1959 and Krishnamurty filed S. A. No 751/59 against the common judgment of the learned Additional District Judge. By common consent, the two appeals were heard together by a Division Bench consisting of Chandra Reddy, C. J. and myself. Along with these two appeals, we also heard a memo of cross objections which was filed by some defendants contending that the alienations under Exhibit B. 20 and Exhibit B. 19 were valid and binding on the plaintiffs. Shri Ch. Sankara Sastry argued the two appeals on behalf of the appellants in great detail but he did not urge before us that the one-eighth share awarded By the learned Additional District Judge was wrongly awarded instead of one forth share which was the correct share I pronounced judgment of the Division Bench sitting singly in my chambers. While I was pronouncing judgment Shri T. Veerabhadrayya, who appeared before me on behalf of the appellants, mentioned that the one eighth share mentioned in the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge was not correct and that he ought to have mentioned one fourth share. Shri P. P. Surya Rao, who appeared for the respondents at that time, did not agree with the statement of Shri T. Veerabhadrayya. I completed pronouncing the judgment of the Division Bench on 18-11-1963 dismissing S. A. Nos. 750 and 751 of 1959 and also dismissing the Memorandum of cross-objections. Subsequently, Sri T. Veerabhadrayya filed these petitions, C. M. P. Nos. 11655 to 11657 of 1964 on 6-6-1964. He also filed along with them S. R. No. 22524 of 1964 together with a petition (C. M. P. No. 11653 of 1964) for excusing delay in filing S. R. No. 22524 of 1964. I allowed that petition. Thereupon, S. R. No. 22524 of 1964 was numbered as C. M. P. No. 1147 of 1965.

(2.) C. M. P. No. 11654 of 1964 was filed to dispense with certified copy of Judgment. I allowed it.

(3.) C. M. P. No. 11657 of 1964 by Krishnamurty and C. M. P. No. 1147 of 1965 by Seetharama Sastry pray for reviewing the Bench Judgment in S. A. Nos. 750 and 751 of 1959 by granting decree for partition and separate possession of one fourth share instead of one eighth share in item 9 out of Plaint B schedule as mentioned in O. S. No. 17 of 1948. C. M. P. Nos. 11655 and 11656 of 1964 are filed to amend the decree and judgment,