MAKIREDDI NOOKARAJU Vs. MAKIREDDI RAMAMURTHI AND OTHERS, DEFENDANTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam in O.S. No.19 of 1956 on his file.

(2.) One Makireddi Venkanna had two sons. The younger son is the first defendant. The elder son was one Appanna who was the husband of the third defendant by whom he begot his only son Makireddi Nookaraiu, the plaintiff. Venkanna also had two daughters namely, Narayanamma (D.W.1) and Rajamma. Rajamma had a daughter Simhachalam by her first husband. Simhachalam is the wife of the first defendant. Raiamma's second husband is Pothuraju (D.W.2). Rajamma is now dead. The other daughter, Narayanamma (D.W.1) became a widow when she was very young in about 1937 and from then she was living in her father's village. Her father, Venkanna purchased for her the land, which is item 11 of the plaint A schedule through Ex. B-9 dated 22-9-1926. Appanna was a man of sub-normal intelligence and he died in about 1947. Venkanna died a few months thereafter.

(3.) Makireddi Nookaraju, as sole plaintiff, filed O.S. No.19 of 1956 for partition of the properties of plaint A and B Schedule into two equal shares and for possession of one such share, for taking of accounts in respect of A schedule lands till delivery of possession and for fixing maintenance of the third defendant. The second defendant is the undivided minor son of the first defendant. The third defendant is the plaintiff's mother. Plaintiff contended in his plaint that himself and the defendants were members of a joint family. The first defendant was the manager of the joint family. As Appanna was not a worldly-wise man, the other members of the family ill-treated his (Appanna's) wife (D-3) with the result that the latter had to go away and live in her parent's house since two years prior to the death of Appanna. After the death of Appanna and Venkanna, the third defendant demanded partition on behalf of the plaintiff. But, the first defendant said that he would partition only after the plaintiff attained majority. Then there was a panchayat as regards maintenance of the third defendant, as a result of which a temporary arrangement was made by giving her one acre of land as maintenance in addition to giving a room in the house for her residence. After attaining majority, the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant had secreted the income from the properties with a view to defraud him. Plaintiff issued a lawyer's notice (Ex. B-3) dated 10-7-1955.