KANDADAI TIRUMALACHARYA Vs. KANDADAI VENKATACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular first appeal by first defendant in O. S. No. 57 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the subordinate Judge, Warangal. The suit for partition was initially filed informa pauperis, by Kandadai Perundevamma against four defendants, including her two sons, namely, tirumalacharyulu, and Venkatachari, The suffix Chari, Charya and/or Charyulu are used interchangeably in the pleadings as well as evidence and admittedly all are one and the same. defendant Nos. l and 4. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, namely Kunduri Venkatachary and kunduri Ramanjacharya, are children of venkatamma who is elder sister of perundevamma. Sole plaintiff's son venkatachari was transposed as second plaintiff as per orders of trial Court in la. No. 114 of 1983, dated 28. 6. 1983. After death of second defendant, his children came on record as defendant Nos. 4 to 6. Defendant Nos. 7 and 8 were brought on record as legal representatives of defendant no. 3. During pendency of appeal suit before this Court, Tirumalacharyulu - sole appellant; died, and his wife and son are brought on record as legal heirs. The first respondent/second plaintiff also died and his legal heirs are brought on record as respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in appeal. Be it noted that defendant Nos. 4 to 8 in the suit (respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in appeal) remained ex parte before trial Court.

(2.) THE suit was filed for partition of plaint 'a', 'b' and 'c' schedule properties. The lower Court passed preliminary decree on 26. 3. 1987 for partition and allotment of one-fourth share to plaintiff No. 2 and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 as per the suit prayer in respect of plaint 'a' and 'b' schedule properties excluding certain items in both the schedules. Aggrieved by the same, first defendant filed appeal. The plaintiffs also filed A. S. No. 1785 of 1989. Same lawyer represented them in their appeal as well as the appeal filed by first defendant. Efforts were made for compromise, in vain. In july, 2007, learned Advocate appearing for first respondent reported that he has given up Vakalat. The Court ordered administrative notice. The notices are served on the legal heirs of deceased first respondent, who are impleaded by order of this Court, dated 30. 10. 2006 in A. S. M. P. No. 1634 of 2006. In spite of the same, when the case is called, none appeared and therefore, under Order XLI Rule 17 (2) of code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are set ex parte and the matter is heard from 27. 3. 2008 to 1. 4. 2008. Learned Counsel for appellants and learned Counsel for fifth respondent are heard along with A. S. M. P. No. 611 of 2008 filed by the latter. In this judgment, parties are referred to by their status in the suit. Background of the case and pleadings

(3.) IN this case, as seen from the record, plaint was amended thrice. Issues were recast once and additional issues were framed twice. It is, however, not necessary to summarise the pleadings in detail instead the background of the case leading to filing of the suit may be noticed in brief. The parties to the suit are closely related. All of them claimed descendancy and roots from one Chakravartula tatacharyulu, S/o Raghunadhacharyulu. The following genealogy table would show the relationship of parties and their rank in the suit.