PINNIKA LAKSHMAIAH Vs. PINNIKA VENKATESWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent in the appeal has sought partition of certain properties into three shares and possession of one such share. The lower Court decreed the suit in part. The second defendant has filed this appeal. The plaintiff - first respondent however has filed neither a cross-appeal nor cross-objections.

(2.) The properties, of which partition was sought are described in three schedules. In Sch. A, lands are enumerated in Sch. B cattle and paddy, and in schedule C outstandings.

(3.) The plaintiff (respondent No. 1) has stated his case in the plaint as follows: His father was Pedaveerayya. Padeveerayya and defendants 1 and 2 were brothers. Originally, the father of the three brothers, Pitchaiah was managing the joint family properties. After Pitchaiahs demise the plaintiffs father Pedaveerayya became the Kartha. When Pedaveerayya died, the first defendant succeeded to the management. When these properties were being managed jointly some other properties were purchased with the aid of the income from the family assets in the names of several members of the family. The plaintiff wanted a partition in the year 1967 according to which there was a severance in status of the family and certain properties were allotted to the three branches in a tentative arrangement. Even since then, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 have been provisionally in enjoyment of these properties, tentatively allotted to them. In 1969, he demanded a final partition which was denied. Therefore, he filed the suit. According to him, the family had the properties described in A, B and C Schedules to the plaint.