DEVALLA MAHADEV Vs. GATTU NARMADABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and preliminary decree in O.S.No.20/1989 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Peddapalli, dated 27-3-1981 are assailed in this appeal.

(2.) One Devalla Ramaiah was the owner of the suit schedule properties and he died leaving behind the plaintiff/respondent, a daughter and defendant No.1/appellant a son. According to the respondent/plaintiff, he died in 1959 whereas according to the appellant/defendant No.1, he died on21-12-1955. The suit properties originally belonged to their mother and the name of their father was entered in the revenue records after her death. After his death, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 have been cultivating lands jointly and they were not divided by metes and bounds. The name of the plaintiff has been recorded as 'shikmedar', entitled for half share, in the revenue records. As defendant No.1 has been trying to sell away portions of the suit lands and the parties were trying to get fictitious validation certificates issued by Tahsildar, Manthani, it has become difficult for the plaintiff to remain in joint possession and hence the suit for division of the suit properties by metes and bounds is filed.

(3.) The suit is resisted by defendant No.1. In the written statement it is averred that there was one more daughter to Ramaiah by name Ambakka, who died about 35 years back leaving behind her son Umapathi Rao and husband Ganapathi Rao and that Umapathi Rao is a necessary party to the suit. It is also averred that their father died on 21-12-1955 at Manthani and not in 1959. The plaint averment that the properties originally belonged to their mother and that the name of their father was entered in the revenue records after her death and that the names of plaintiff and defendant No.l are shown as shikmedars subsequent to the death of their father are denied. It is asserted that the suit lands are ancestral properties; that one Devalla Vissiah was the last holder of the Jagir; mat he had two sons viz., Devalla Ramaiah and Devalla Mahadev and Ramaiah had two daughters viz., Amabakka and Narmadabai (plaintiff) and a son Mahadev. On the death of Vissiah, succession was granted in the name of Ramaiah and Mahadev on 20-7-1332 Fasli and they enjoyed Jagir Pension till their death. Thus, the properties are ancestral and not self-acquired properties derived from maternal side. The plaintiff connived with the village patwari and got succession statement prepared by adding her name as shikmedar, but she is not entitled to half share or any share as per law. The plaint averment that after the death of their father, the plaintiff and defendant No.l were cultivating the suit lands jointly and that they were not divided by metes and bounds etc. is false. Defendants No.2 to 4 had purchased S.Nos.132, 136 to 138 and 831 long back and they have perfected their title by adverse possession. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff. The plaint suffers from the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties viz., D.Rajeswar Rao and Madhukar, sons of D. Mahadev son of Vissiah and also Umapathi Rao, s/o. Ambakka and the court fee paid is not sufficient.