REKAPALLI VIRABHADRUDU Vs. R SURYANARAYANAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the dismissal of the suit filed by the sons of the 1st defendant for partition of the family properties by the Subordinate Judge of Amalapuram.

(2.) The 1st defendant instituted an application O. P. No. 25 of 1951, for guardianship of the minor plaintiffs and for the custody of the 1st plaintiff in the suit and the eldest daughter Subbalakshmi. The court of the Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram allowed this application and against this C. M. A. No. 659 of 1953 has been filed. But as the 1st plaintiff has attained majority and the daughter Subbalakshmi is now in the custody of the 1st defendant, the C. M. A. has been dismissed as withdrawn. We are therefore here concerned only with the appeal against the judgment and decree in the suit.

(3.) A few facts which are undisputed may first be set out. The plaintiffs who were minors on the date of the suit are the sons of the 1st defendant by his first wife Satyavati. The first defendant married Satyavathi in 1932 and lived happily together till her death on 24-9-1948. The 1st defendant married a second wife after the death of Satyavathi i.e., in November 1948 and the second wife joined the 1st defendant in January 1950. The 1st defendant who belonged to Vadapalli owns Ac. 16-24 cents in that village but sold, some of these properties after 1944 with a view to acquire valuable wet lands at Narendrapuram near Modekurru where his father-in-law was living. The sales of Vadapalli lands so effected till 1946 were of the extent of 12 acres and odd which fetched a price of Rs. 8,160.00. During that period he acquired at Narendrapuram Ac. 10-71 cents of land for Rs. 8,170.00. These purchases are comprised in items 1 to 11 of the plaint A schedule. He had also acquired a house at Modekurru after selling his house at Vadapalli in 1947. He also sold in 1947 under Exhibits B. 12, B. 13 and B. 14 and also in January 1950 under Exhibit B-34 the remaining lands in Vadapalli. Among the acquisitions made during this period are some lands belonging to his father-in-law. During the period from 30-9-1946 to 22-3-1950 the account in regard to the transactions relating to sales and purchases of land by the 1st defendant and the income from those lands and expenditure of the incomes and realisations on account of the 1st defendant have all been noted in Ex. B-l which was an account kept by his father-in-law. Ex. B-37 relates to the account for the subsequent period upto 30-3- 1951 and this alone has been maintained by the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant also performed the 1st plaintiffs thread-marriage in June 1950. The grand-father of the 1st plaintiff as well as the uncle attended this function as they were all in good terms till then. But on 31-7-1950 Venkateswarlu (D. W. 7) a maternal uncle of the minor plaintiffs, issued Ex. B-40 demanding partition on the ground that it is not beneficial to the interest of the minors to live with their father, the 1st defendant. The suit out of which this appeal arises had thereafter been filed on 21-11-1950 by P. W. 1 who is one of the maternal uncles of the minor plaintiffs, but adopted to another family, and not by D. W. 7.