SIKHARI LAKSHMAIAH Vs. SIKHARI PEDDAMALLAIAH DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule proper ties comprised in S. Nos. 864, 865, 866. 867/1, 867/5, 868 and 869 and to allot their share in Ac. 19-29 Guntas in the Schedule properties and put them in possession thereof.

(2.) The averments in the plaint are as follows:-- The plaintiffs are the sons of the 8th defendant. The 5th defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant. Defendants 1 and 8 are brothers The and defendant is the wife of late Pochaiah the deceased son of the 1st defendant Defendants 3 and 4 are daughters of the 2nd defendant. Defendants 1 and 8 and their father constituted joint family enjoying the plaint schedule properties as well as the other properties which are the ancestral properties. After the death of their father, defendants 1 and 8 continued to enjoy these properties till they got divided some immovable properties between them leaving the plaint-schedule properties undivided for future partition. As per the plaint schedule properties are concerned, they are enjoying them as co-owners. The plaint schedule properties are in the names of defendants land 8 in the revenue records and the 8th defendant is under the influence and control of the 1st defendant and is not interested in looking after the interests of the plaintiffs. if the properties are divided by metes and bounds, the plaintiffs would be in position to carry out improvements the lands allotted to their share. The plaintiffs are making demands to effect partition but the defendants are not caring for the same. Defendants 2 to 4 were entitled to 1/4th share in the plaint schedule properties as successors of undivided share of late Pochaiah They filed a suit against the 1st defendant for partition of the joint family properties. Defendants 1 and 8 brought about a nominal partition-deed in the year 1960 according to which all the plaint-schedule properties are shown to have been partitioned between them. The alleged partition has not been acted upon and is a sham and nominal one. Plaintiffs are not patties to the partition deed and the same is not binding on them. The document is not registered and therefore it is inadmissible in evidence. As the 1st defendant has agreed to sell some portion of the plaint-schedule lands, the suit was filed.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the 1st defendant the relationship between the parties has been admitted It is further stated that defendants 2 to 4 filed a suit (O. S 33 of 1964) on the file of the First Addl. Judge, Hyderabad it is denied that the plaint schedule properties constitute joint family properties end that the 8th defendant is under the influence of the 1st defendant On 11-9-1960 there was a partition effected between the 1st and 8th defendants in the presence of mediators and the lands in S. Nos. 861/1, 868 and 869/1 have fallen to the share of the 1st defendant. A partition deed was executed and signed by defendants 1 and 8 on 11-9-1960, but the same was not registered Since then defendants 1 and 8 who have been living separately have taken their respective shares in the suit properties also It is not true that the partition dated 11-9-1960 is a nominal one. The plaintiffs having kept quiet all these years, have held this suit with mala fide intention. Defendants 6 and 7 who are the daughters of the 1st defendant and who were impleaded subsequently, filed a separate written statement. They also support the plea of the 1st defendant.