BHEEMINENI RAJAMMA Vs. G KRISHNAMA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. She filed the suit for partition claiming a half share in the suit properties which belonged to her deceased father Venkata Swamy Naidu who died intestate in the year 1971-72 leaving behind him surviving the plaintiff and the first defendant who is the son of the pre-deceased son of Venkata Swamy Naidu as his nearest legal heirs. The suit was initially filed against the first defendant only. Subsequently the mother and three sisters of the first defendant were impleaded as defendants 2 to 5 in the suit as they are also necessary parties. According to the plaintiff the suit properties are self acquired properties of her father in which she became entitled to half share on the death of her father and the defendants are entitled to the remaining half share. The first defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by defendants 2 to 5, contending that the suit properties are ancestral joint family properties but not the self acquired properties of Venkata Swamy Naidu and that the said properties were always treated and enjoyed as Joint family properties of Venkata Swamy Naidu and his son Lingama Naidu (father of the first defendant). It was also pleaded that at the time of Venkata Swamy Naidu's death the family had debts to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and considering the same there was a family arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendants whereunder the plaintiff was given 40 sovereigns of gold jewellery in lieu of her share in the family assets and liabilities and that the said family arrangement was accepted and fully acted upon by all the parties including the plaintiff and as such the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit properties and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

(2.) On the above pleadings the trial Court after framing appropriate issues and after trial dismissed the suit. With regard to the nature of the suit properties, the Lower Court found that they are joint family properties. As regards the debts pleaded by the first defendant, the Lower Court found that most of the debts were discharged by Venkata Swamy Naidu himself during his lifetime and that the first defendant failed to establish that he had discharged the debts contracted by his father and grand father. The Lower Court however dismissed the suit believing the family arrangement pleaded by first defendant. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has assailed the judgment and decree of the trial Court by contending that the Lower Court has grossly erred in believing the alleged oral family arrangement pleaded by the defendants in the absence of any credible or acceptable evidence and its judgment is perverse.