DAKA AUDEMMA Vs. INAGANTI VENKATESWARA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.175 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, who is the appellant in A.S.No.34 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Ongole preferred this appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, hereinafter, referred to as CPC) challenging the dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court and affirmed by the 1st appellate Court.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties to the appeal will be referred hereinafter throughout the judgment as arrayed before the trial Court.

(3.) Plaintiff filed the suit for partition of Plaint A and B schedule property into three equal shares and to allot 1/3rd share to the plaintiff declaring that the sale deed dated 04.12.2002 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant is nominal, collusive, sham and not binding on the plaintiffs 1/3rd share in the plaint B schedule property and for future profits alleging that the plaintiff and 3rd defendants are daughters of the 1st defendant and Setharavamma. Plaintiffs elder sister is the wife of 2nd defendant and her marriage was performed long prior to 1985. Plaintiffs marriage was performed on 15.11.1985 with Daka Chimpiri Reddy of Rap village, whereas the marriage of the 3rd daughter was performed in the year 1989. Since the marriages of the plaintiff and 3rd defendant have taken place subsequent to the advent of A.P.Act No.13/1986 both of them are entitled to claim 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property, which are fully described in the plaint. The 1st defendant being the kartha and manager of the joint family is in possession and enjoyment of the same except the property covered by the sale deed referred supra on account of sale.