YARLAGADDA TULASAMMA Vs. YARLAGADDA PARDHASARADHI VENKATA SURYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORT EPISODE a. S. No. 1326 of 1995 is filed by defendants -1, 2 and 8 in O. S. No. 71 of 90 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, ramachandrapuram. Likewise A. S. No. 1624 of 1995 was preferred by defendants-3 to 6 in the said suit O. S. No. 71 of 90 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, ramachandrapuram. The first appellant in a. S. No. 1624 of 1995, who is the third defendant in the suit died and appellant No. 5 was brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased appellant no. 1 by an order dated 27. 10. 2005 made in a. S. M. P. No. 2198 of 2005. The first respondent in both these appeals is the plaintiff in the said suit. The said suit was instituted praying for the relief of partition of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares if necessary after setting aside the various alienations made by Yarlagadda padmarajamma and others from 1. 9. 1957 and allot one such share to the plaintiff and deliver vacant possession of the same and for future profits and also for costs.

(2.) THE learned Subordinate Judge, ramachandrapuram, in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of p. W. 1, the plaintiff Yarlagadda Parthasarathi and D. W. 1, defendant No. 3 Yarlagadda ammanamma and also marked Exs. A-1 to a-17 and Ex. B-1 and after recording the findings, came to the conclusion that the suit filed being within the limitation and inasmuch as the plaintiff is entitled to a share , a preliminary decree for partition to be passed and accordingly granted preliminary decree for partition of plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and one such share to the plaintiff and further held that the plaintiff is also entitled to future profits from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of his share and the actual partition by metes and bounds that takes place in the final decree proceedings. But, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties were directed to bear their own costs. Hence, the present appeals.

(3.) BOTH these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since certain of the defendants as aforesaid being aggrieved by the decree and judgment made in O. S. No. 71 of 1990 specified supra had preferred a. S. No. 1326 of 1995 and certain others preferred A. S. No. 1624 of 1995 as against the self same decree. CONTENTIONS OF SRI C. SUBBA RAO