CHINNAPPAREDDIGARI PEDDA MUTHYLAREDDY Vs. CHINNAPPAREDDIGARI VENKATAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Basi Reddy, J., being confronted with having to choose between two Full Bench decisions namely, Ramayya v. Achamma, AIR 1944 Mad 550 (FB) and K. Kanna Reddy v. K. Venkatareddy, AIR 1965 Andh Pra 274 (FB), both binding on him, dealing with the combined effect of Sec. 49 (c) of the Registration Act and Section 91 of the Evidence Act, referred the matter to a Division Bench which in turn referred it to a Full Bench.

(2.) The plaintiff who is the first respondent in the appeal, filed the suit for partition of the joint family property and allotment to him of a half share, the first, second and fourth defendants being entitled to the other half share. Plaintiffs father Chinna Muthyalareddy, the first defendants father Nagi Reddy and the third defendants husband Chinna Nagireddy were brothers and were members of a joint Hindu family. Chinna Nagireddy, the husband of the third defendant, died issueless prior to 1937 and so the third defendant is said to be entitled only to maintenance. Plaintiffs father died about 40 years before the date of the suit. First defendants father died 1 1/2 years prior to the date of the suit, leaving two sons, viz., the first defendant and Chinna Mutyal Reddy who died 10 months before the suit, leaving a widow, the fourth defendant. The second defendant is the widow of first defendants father. Defendants 5 to 7 were added as parties as they are co-owners of items 14 to 17 of the plaint schedule properties. The second defendant having died pending suit, her daughter, the eighth defendant, has been brought on record as her legal representative.

(3.) The plaintiff averred that he and defendants 1 to 4 have continued joint and are continuing as members of a joint family, though on account on difference they have been living in separate houses. The plaintiff and the first defendant have each been separately enjoying portions of the joint family properties for convenience of management for the last three or four years. The plaintiff being unwilling to remain joint with other members of the family, wanted to effect partition and to get separate possession, and for that purpose issued a registered notice to the first defendant. But the first defendant in his reply notice, set up a prior partition. It is the plaintiffs case that there was no partition as set up by the first defendant, and even if there was a prior partition. it was vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation and is liable to be set aside.