I PULLA REDDY Vs. I SESHI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants. They are theson and daughter respectively of the first defendant. The parties as arrayed in the lower Court are described in the appeal as well. Their suit for partition was dismissed. Thus they filed this appeal.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the second defendant is the fatherof the first and third defendants. The appellants are the children of the first defendant. The second defendant died pending appeal. His widow, the fourth respondent, and his two daughters, the fifth and the sixth respondents, are impleaded as legal represntatives. They are also termed as defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6 for the purpose of continuity. 'A' schedule property consists of immovable properties of an extent of Ac. 33-71 cents. 'B schedule property consists of movables and cash and their total value is Rs. 35,300/-. The extents of these lands and their existence have not been disputed.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs is that all these properties are coparcenaryproperties; and that by birth the first plaintiff is entitled to his share in the coparcenary. The 2nd plaintiff is entitled to maintenance and marriage expenses. The defendants pleaded a prior partition on March 31, 1974 as evidenced by the partition lists, Exs. B-l to B-3, so as to non-suit the plaintiffs. They have also stated that item No. 13 is alleged to have been purchased by the second and the third defendants under Ex. B-16, the agreement of sate, dated April 25, 1974 and this item was disbelieved by the Court below; that item Nos. 1 and 9 were purchased by the fourth defendant and they are, therefore, her separate property: and that item No. 12 was stated to have been given in the partition, dated March 31, 1974, to the mother of the second defendant towards her maintenance and this is also not available for partition.