NARAHARASETI PATTABHIRAMA RAO Vs. MADDULA KASI VISWANATHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which arises for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the partition deed marked as Ex.A3 in the case evidences merely a partial partition or it has brought about a division in status. The Courts below have expressed conflicting views on this question. While the trial Court held that Ex.A3 has resulted in the disruption of the joint family, the learned Single Judge held that under Ex.A3 only some specified properties of the joint family were partitioned without affecting the status of the family and the remaining properties continued to be the joint family properties. For proper appreciation of the question involved, it may be necessary to recount the facts of the case briefly.

(2.) The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants herein. The plaintiffs and the third defendant are sons of the second defendant. The first defendant is the alienee having purchased the suit property, consisting of two shop rooms in Eluru town, under a registered sale deed dated 22-3-1971 (Ex.A1) executed by the second defendant for himself and as guardian of the plaintiffs who were then minors and by the third defendant who was a major for a total consideration of Rs.25,000/-. The plaintiffs and Defendants 2 and 3 constituted a joint Hindu family of which the second defendant was the Kartha. The family possessed houses and house-sites in Eluru town besides agricultural lands. By and under a registered partition deed dated 26-8-1957 (Ex. A3) there was a division of some of the agricultural lands belonging to the family between the second defendant and his three sons who were then minors represented by their mother as guardian. According to the plaintiffs, the said partition deed resulted in division in status and thereafter the plaint schedule property and the other properties, which were not the subject matter of the partition deed dated 26-8-1957, were enjoyed by plaintiffs and Defendants 2 and 3 as tenants in common but not as coparceners and as such the sale deed dated 22-3-1971 executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant was not valid and binding on the plaintiffs to the extent of their half share in the suit property. Hence they laid the suit for cancellation of the sale deed to the extent of their half share in the suit property, for partition and separate possession of their half share therein and also for recovery of past and future profits.

(3.) The first defendant resisted the suit contending, inter aha, that the partition deed Ex.A3 was a nominal deed which was never intended to be acted upon, that the plaintiffs and Defendants 2 and 3 continued as members of the joint family and that the sale deed Ex.Al was executed by the second defendant as the Kartha of the family for legal necessity i.e., for the discharge of antecedent debts and also for the benefit of the family and it was perfectly valid and binding on the plaintiffs.