REDDI ANJANEYULU Vs. K ANJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner (sic. Appellant) is the plaintiff. Suit for partition and separate possession has been partly allowed.

(2.) It is no longer in., dispute before me i.e., the father of the plaintiff, namely Venkata Ramaiah, the deceased father of the 2nd defendant and the husband of the Ist defendant namely late Peddisetti and Thimmisetti were real brothers. The father of the plaintiff was the youngest brother. The 3rd defendant is the real sister of the plaintiff. All the said 3 brothers were members of the joint Hindu family who possessed Ac. 1.75 cents of dry land and one shed. The deceased brother Thimmisetti separated himself from the joint Hindu family prior to 1925 and some land and l/3rd portion of the residential house was allotted to him. The father of the plaintiff had pre-deceased his elder brother late Peddisetti who had expired on 3-1-1977. Late Peddisetti had purchased some lands through registered sale deed Ex.B-7 on 08-08-1927. Thus this joint Hindu family had possessed land bearing survey No. 51/2 measuring Ac. 1.75 cents and land bearing survey No. 62/2 measuring Ac. 1.37 cents and 2/3rds of the residential house as also vacant site, having old foundation as shown in item Nos. 1 and 2 of plaint 'A' schedule property and item Nos. 1 and 2 of plaint 'B' schedule property.

(3.) The plaintiff alleged that the joint Hindu family carried the business of money lending, ground nuts and brown sugar and the deceased Peddisetti was the Manager of the joint Hindu family. From the income derived from the agricultural lands as also from the joint Hindu family business, he had purchased items 3 to 15 of plaint 'A' schedule land and cattle shown in the plaint 'C' schedule. The joint Hindu family had advanced loan to debtors shown in plaint 'D' schedule. His father had expired in the month of October 1975 but the family continued to be joint family after the death of his uncle Peddisetti on 3-1-1977. The Ist defendant had started getting the pronotes and the mortgage deeds renewed in her favour and also started collecting the debts and had refused to give share to the plaintiff. Therefore the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant are entitled to claim half share in the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds because the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have refused to partition the properties.