S. SUGUNAMMA Vs. B. PADMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the dismissal of her suit for partition, the plaintiff has come up with the above appeal.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Prabhakar Sripada, learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Godi Rajeswarai, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 5 to 8, Mr. P. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 and Mr. Meharchnd Noori, learned counsel for the 11th respondent.

(3.) The appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.99 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Medak, seeking partition and separate possession of her ?th share in the properties described in Schedules A, B, C and D of the plaint. The case of the appellant/ plaintiff in the suit was that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 are the daughters of one Burigari Kista Reddy; that the said Kista Reddy was the absolute owner of properties detailed in the plaint schedules; that they were all his self-acquired properties; that Kista Reddy died intestate in the year 1971 leaving behind his wife Satyamma and 5 daughters who are appellant/plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4; that after the death of the father Kista Reddy, the name of the mother namely Satyamma was entered in the revenue records; that after the death of the mother Satyamma, the properties devolved equally upon the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4; that during the life time of the father Kista Reddy, he performed the marriage of the plaintiff as well as the defendants 1 to 4; that after the death of both the parents, the 1st defendant used to look after the properties; that when the activities of the 1st defendant became suspicious, the plaintiff approached the Mandal Revenue Officer and obtained certified copies of the Pahanies and other documents; that from those documents he found that the sons of the 1st defendant, who were arrayed as defendants 5 to 8, got their names entered in the revenue records; that the said mutation was unlawful and that therefore, she was entitled to partition.