MEKA PEETHAMABARAM Vs. NANDURI LAKSHMINARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. These appeals arising from a common judgment in two suits, raise an important question pertaining to the scope and ambit of Section 11 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. A.S. No. 49/1975 arises from O.S. No, 66/1963, while A.S. No. 50/1975 arises from O. S. No. 69/1968, both suits on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry.

(2.) The two plaintiffs are brothers and their suit claim is identical, namely, for partition and separate possession of their 1/3 share in suit properties. The 1st defendant in both the suits is the eldest brother of the plaintiffs. Both the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant are the sons of one Nanduri Kukkuteswararao.

(3.) It would be sufficient, If 1 state the facts in O.S. No. 66/68. According to the plaint averments, during the minority of the plaintiffs their father effected a partition and separated himself from his three sons. The partition is evidenced by a registered partition deed dated 2-7-1949 (Ex. A-1). According to the said deed of partition, the lands mentioned in 'A' Schedule therein were allotted to the father, while the properties mentioned in 'B' schedule were allotted to the three sons jointly. 'A' schedule consisted of about Ac. 10.00, while 'B' schedule consisted of about Ac. 30.00. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/3 share in the said Ac. 30.00. After attaining the majority he wanted to have his 1/3 share separated, but then he found defendants 3 to 7 in unlawful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. According to him, the alienations, if any, made of the suit property are void and not binding upon him and for that reason the possession of defendants 3 to 7 thereon is unlawful and unauthorised. He, therefore, asked for mesne profits also besides partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share. The suit is confined to the said Ac. 30.00, mentioned in 'B' schedule to the partition deed, dated. 2-7-1949.