MOLLETI APPALANAIDU Vs. MOOKALA YERRUNAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.177 of 1983 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Srungavarapukota. filed this Second Appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram in A.S.No.4 of 1992. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants; for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of Ac.0.47 cents of land in Survey No.50/4 and 50/6 of Kallam Village. He pleaded that his father, by name Appalanaidu, had two wives by name Adamma, his mother, and Venkayamma. In a family settlement brought about in the year 1950, the properties held by Appalanaidu said to have been settled in equal shares among Appalanaidu and his two wives.

(2.) The plaintiff and one Mr.Satyam are the sons of Adamma, whereas Narasingarao and Eswararao are the sons of Venkayamma. The plaintiff stated that in a partition between himself and his brother, which took place in the year 1968, the suit schedule property fell to his share, and since then, he is in possession of the same. He complained that the defendants started interfering with his possession, without any basis or right. The defendauts pleaded that in the family settlement, the suit schedule property was kept in joint and rest of the properties were allotted to Appalanaidu and his two wives,, According to them, the suit land is a thrashing ground and the sons of Venkayamma have sold their undivided two-third share in favour of the dbfendants, through a sale deed, dated 07.04.1971, marked as Ex.B.1.

(3.) The trial Court decreed the suit on 14.08.1991. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants filed A.S.No.4 of 1992. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal on 29.12.1394. Hence, the Second Appeal. Sri Sharat, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that when admittedly a partition-cum-settlement had taken place among Appalanaidu, the common ancestor, and his two wives, there was no basis for the plea of the defendants that the suit schedule property was kept in joint. He contends that even assuming that the: suit schedule property remained joint, the defendants could have secured any right by claiming partition and not otherwise.