NAMBI NARAYAN RAO Vs. NAMBI RAJESHWAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS in a suit for partition are the appellants. For the sake of convenience the parties to this appeal would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.

(2.) MINOR plaintiff, represented by his mother as guardian, filed the suit for partition of the properties specified in the plaint A to D schedules (the suit properties) into two equal shares, and for allotment of one such share to him inter alia contending that his father narsing Rao (the deceased), the son of the defendants 1 and 2, died on 12-12-1954 leaving behind his wife Sushila Bai, who took him in adoption as per sastric rites on 02-03-1975 in the presence of the villagers. A deed of adoption evidencing his adoption was also executed by her on 13-02-1980. As the coparcenary of the deceased and first defendant, of which the first defendant was the karta, was possessing the suit properties, the deceased was having half share therein. After the death of the deceased he became entitled to that share of the deceased as the adopted son of the deceased, first defendant, who was affectionate towards him and who had executed a registered Will bequeathing all his properties to him and the second defendant, had, subsequently, without any legal necessity, sold away the properties described in the plaint 'b' schedule and utilized the sale proceeds for himself and so those sale transactions are not binding on him. For reasons not known to him first defendant developed ill-will towards him and his adoptive mother Sushila Bai and threatened that he would make them paupers and did not co-operate for partition of the suit properties though he (first defendant) had, in the declaration filed by him under the provisions of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (the Act), admitted that his daughter-in-law Sushila Bai has half share in the properties shown by him therein. Hence the suit.

(3.) FIRST defendant, who died during the pendency of the suit, filed his written statement inter alia admitting the relationship between him and the deceased and the adoption of the plaintiff by Sushila Bai and contending that inasmuch as the deceased died in 1954, neither Sushila Bai, as his widow, nor the plaintiff, as the adopted son of sushila Bai, could inherit the share of his son (the deceased) and denied the existence of the gold articles mentioned in the plaint 'd' schedule, and alleged that Sushila Bai, who was presented with 41 tolas of gold at the time of her marriage with the deceased, is in possession of that gold, and contended that though he does not accept the plaintiff as the adopted son of the deceased, he with a view to save the property belonging to his family, by brining it out from the purview of the Act, mentioned in the declaration filed by him under the Act that his daughter-in-law Sushila bai has half share in the family properties, but that contention of his was not accepted by the Tribunal constituted under the Act. Though he, at the instance of Sushila Bai and K. Kishen Rao-the natural father of the plaintiff had to execute a Will on 27-02-1980, with a hope that Sushila Bai would look after him and his wife during their old age, had by cancelling that Will executed another Will dated 25-01-1982, and got it registered, as sushila Bai and Kishen Rao started pestering him. Since all the lands mentioned in plaint 'a' and 'b' schedules were sold long prior to 02-03-1975, the date of the adoption of the plaintiff, plaintiff, in any event, cannot claim a share in those properties which were sold away by him. As the properties mentioned in the plaint 'b' schedule are his self-acquired properties and not the joint family properties, plaintiff, in any event, has no share therein. As he adopted a boy named Parthasarathi, parthasarathi also is entitled to a share in the properties belong to the joint family. Since his adopted son Parthasarathi, who is a necessary party, is not made a party to the suit, the suit is not maintainable. Sushila Bai who was entitled to maintenance was put in possession of Acs. 6-07gts in Sy. Nos. 136, 137, 15 and 214; and Acs. 3-21gts in sy. No. 356 of Yakeenpur belonging to the joint family. Since those lands are not shown in any of the schedules appended to the plaint, the suit, in any event filed for partition of only some of the properties belonging to the joint family is not maintainable.