LAWS(APH)-2018-8-8

KUNCHAKURTHY VEERA SANGAIAH AND OTHERS Vs. G SAKUNTHALA (SINCE DIED) REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS

Decided On August 10, 2018
Kunchakurthy Veera Sangaiah And Others Appellant
V/S
G Sakunthala (Since Died) Represented By Her Legal Representatives And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant Nos.1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 in O.S.No.2 of 2002 filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Order XLI of CPC, feeling aggrieved by judgment dt.29.01.2008 in the said suit, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Medak, at Sangareddy.

(2.) Respondent No.1 (since died) presently represented by respondent Nos.23 to 28, filed the cross-objections in respect of item No.3 of the plaint schedule properties allotting the said item to the shares of appellant Nos.1 and 5 to 7, for being allotted to their purchasers, who are defendant Nos.11 to 28. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

(3.) Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that late K. Veeraiah (hereinafter referred to as "the testator") is the original owner of the plaint schedule properties comprising A to C schedules. Defendant No.1 is the son, and the plaintiff and defendant No.2 are the daughters of the testator. The testator died on 19.12.1990 allegedly leaving behind a Will, which is the source of the litigation between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 8 to 10. The plaintiff married long prior to the death of her father. In February 2002, she filed the suit for partition of the suit schedule properties into three shares and allotment of one such share to her. The suit was originally filed against defendant Nos.1 and 2 only. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.1 and 2 died. Hence, defendant Nos.8 to 10, sons of defendant No.1, defendant Nos.4 to 7, children of defendant No.2, were impleaded. Defendant Nos.3 and defendant Nos.11 to 28, the alleged third party purchasers of the property also came on record. The basis for the claim of the plaintiff for partition was that the suit schedule properties were self-acquired properties of her father K. Veereaiah, who died intestate and that therefore she succeeded to 1/3rd share of her father.