KASETTY AMPAIAH Vs. PEDDA ALPURAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful 1st defendant in O.S.No. 102 of l981 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge at Kurnool is the appellant A decree for partition and separate possession has been passed against him

(2.) It is no longer in dispute before me that late Thippaiah, the husband of the 4th respondent, was the real elder brother of the appellant, whereas, the remaining respondents are the daughters of late Thippaiah. The appellant and late Thippaiah were sons of one Veerappa who died long back leaving behind him his aforesaid two sons and certain agricultural lands to be inherited by them.

(3.) The respondents 1 to 3 brought suit O.S.No. 102of 1983 for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property alleging that the plaint schedule property is the property of the joint Hindu family consisting of themselves their father late Thippaiah, mother the 4th respondent and the appellant and his family members. Both the brothers had equal share in the plaint schedule property. After the death of late Thippaiah, about three years back from the date of the institution of the suit, the respondents inherited their half share in the plaint schedule property alongwith the appellant who has half share in the same. It is further alleged that the appellant brought some nominal documents for the purpose of defeating the Land Reform laws and under the influence of theappellant, the 4th respondent is residing with him. The respondents No. 1 to 3 demanded their share in the plaint schedule property but the appellant on one pretext or the other avoided the same and in spite of written notice did not give their share to them and, on the other hand, replied falsely that partition had taken place between him and late Thippaiah. He had made late Thippaiah to make a false statement before the Land Reforms authorities under his instructions to gain some benefit under the Land Reforms Act. But, actually no partition has ever taken place between them. The respondents are entitled to l/3rd share each in the plaint schedule property.