REDDY SUBBARAO Vs. NUNNE VENKATARAMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE both these appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, parties to these appeals would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.

(2.) REDDY Subbarao (Plaintiff) filed the suit for partition of the properties specified in A to c schedules appended to the plaint i. e. wet lands, two buildings and movable properties respectively, into two equal shares by metes and bounds and to further divide one such share into two equal shares and allot a total of 3/4 share in the plaint A to C schedule properties to him. Subsequently, the father-in-law of the plaintiff filed I. A. No. 205 of 1983 seeking amendment of the cause title of the plaint by adding his name as the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff on the ground that he was given a power of attorney by the plaintiff to conduct proceedings on his behalf. That petition was allowed by the trial court on 23. 06. 1983.

(3.) THE case, in brief, of the plaintiff is that reddy Chanchai Rao and his wife i. e. the first defendant, who were not having children, had, when he was three years of age, requested his natural parents to give him in adoption to them and had on the consent of his parents, took him to their house and brought him up in their house and had on 08-02-1964 adopted him as per Hindu Sastric rites and ceremonies in the presence of relatives and elders. Subsequently Chanchai rao had executed a deed of adoption and got it registered on 09-03-1964 and admitted him in the school at Velpur, and died subsequently on 01. 08. 1973. Reddy Chanchai Rao purchased some of the items of property covered by the suit in the name of the first defendant, benami for his benefit and treated all the plaint A to C schedule properties as the joint family properties. Subsquent to the death of Chanchai Rao he and first defendant lived jointly in the plaint B schedule house till about May 1978 and gave the plaint a schedule properties to defendants 2 to 5 on lease. After the first defendant drove him out of the house with his wearing apparel on 11 -07-1978, sixth defendant, who is the son-in-law of the younger brother of first defendant, started living with the first defendant and began influencing her with a view to knock away the plaint schedule properties. As the telegraphic notices got issued by him on 11-07-1978 to defendants 1 and 6 were returned unserved with an endorsement that they left the village, he got issued a registered notice to them seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties for which they sent replies through their advocates on 25-07-1978 with false and untenable allegations. Hence the suit.