MERIA NARAYUDU Vs. M BRAMARAMBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rama Mohan, Counsel representing the appellants and Sri Nagesh, Counsel representing the respondents.

(2.) Respondents 1 and 2 herein, plaintiffs in the suit, filed O.S.No.4/89 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram praying for the relief of partition. The learned Judge on the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties having settled the Issues recorded the evidence of P.W.1, D.W.1 to D.W.4, marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Exs.B-1 to B-9 and ultimately passed a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs effecting partition of plaint A Schedule property into 180 shares according to good and bad qualities and allotting 16 shares to the 1st plaintiff and 76 shares to the 2nd plaintiff respectively and ordering delivery of the same separately to them and also ordering partition of plaint B Schedule property into 540 shares according to good and bad qualities and allotting 16 shares to the 1st plaintiff and 76 shares to the 2nd plaintiff respectively and delivery of the same to them and also ordering delivery of plaint C Schedule articles as per Ex.B-9 Memo of the Commissioner to the 1st plaintiff as per C Schedule. It was further directed that the plaintiffs are liable to pay Rs.11,600/-, the amount due under the promissory note Ex.B-7 by the husband of the 1st plaintiff late Ammiraju which was discharged by the 1st defendant from out of the assets of late Ammiraju to be allotted and delivered to them. It was further directed that the plaintiffs are entitled for future profits on shares to be allotted to them till the date of delivery. It was also directed that the 1st defendant is entitled to the amount of Rs.11,600/-from the plaintiffs and the 3rd defendant from out of the assets of the deceased Ammiraju, the husband of the 1st plaintiff and after paying the requisite Court fee on the said amount. However, the learned Judge directed the parties to bear their own costs. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants 1 and 3, the grand father and grandson, preferred the present Appeal and inasmuch as the 1 appellant died, the 3rd appellant was brought on record in A.S.MP.No.110/06 by orderdated 1-2-2006.

(3.) Submissions of Sri Rama Mohan: Sri Rama Mohan, the learned Counsel representing the appellants would maintain that in fact there was no actual partition but there was only tentative partition or some arrangement and this cannot be treated as partition. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence available on record and would maintain that in the light of Ex.B-7 promissory note executed in favour of D.W.4, the stand taken by the 1st defendant should have been upheld. While further making his submissions the learned Counsel pointed out that though some finding had been recorded relating to the identity of the property to the effect that the property covered under Ex.A-5 is not in the plaint schedule, the fact remains that it is Item No.2 of the plaint A schedule and Item No.3 of the A schedule specified by the defendant. The wife of the 4th defendant was not impleaded as a party and hence finding that the sale deed was by an incompetent person orthe said transaction is invalid cannot be recorded in the absence of such party. The learned Counsel also pointed out to other oral and documentary evidence available on record. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no other evidence available on record as far as the plaintiffs are concerned.