LACHAPETA RAMALAXMI Vs. LACHAPETA BALANARSAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs in O.S.No.24 of 1996 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, filed this Second appeal. They filed the suit, against the defendants, for partition of the suit schedule properties. The trial Court dismissed the suit, through the judgment, dated 05.06.2000. Thereupon, they filed A.S.No.42 of 2000 in the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Medak at Sangareddy. The appeal was dismissed on 30.06.2001. Hence, this Second Appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

(2.) The first plaintiff is the mother of plaintiffs 2 to 4. The parties to the proceedings represent three branches of the family represented by the sons of late Balaiah. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons and defendants 7 and 8 are the daughters of one Sri Gundaiah, eldest son of Balaiah. Defendant No.6 is the wife of defendant No.2. The husband of the first plaintiff and first defendant are the sons and defendant No.9 is the daughter of the second son, by name Bal Rajaiah. Defendants 4 and 5 are the sons and defendant No. 10 is the daughter of the third son, whose name is also Balaiah.

(3.) The plaintiffs pleaded that the entire family was joint and consequent upon the death of said Balaiah, his eldest son Gundaiah has become karta and manager of the joint family; and in fact, the properties held by the family were mutated in his name, and that after his death, his eldest son, the second defendant is managing the properties It was pleaded that for the sake of convenience, the three blanches were allotted separate houses and were provided tentative extents of land for cultivation and that no partition, as such, has taken place. According to them, the second defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the vast extents of joint family properties to the detriment of other coparceners and that he did not accede to the request, for partition of the pioperties.