SINGULURI KRISHMURTHY Vs. SINGALURI DAMODARARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASMP Nos.1476 of 2008 and 799 of 2009 are filed by R1 and R2 and whereas ASMP No.2040 of 2009 is filed by the appellant in AS No.284 of 2006. Reliefs sought for in the petitions are : ASMP No. 1476 of 2008 :

(2.) Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of these applications by the parties in AS No.284 of 2006 are : Singaluri Damadararao, Singaluri Venkata Madhusudhanarao and Singaluri Lakshmi Prasad filed OS No.23 of 2001 on the file of Principal District Judge, Eluru against Singaluri Krishna Murthy, Singaluri Surya Chandra Rao and Singaluri Pardha Saradhi for partition and separate possession of their l/3rd share each in the suit schedule properties. Plaintiff Nos.l to 3 and D3 are brothers and they are sons of Satyanarayana. D1, D2 and Satyanarayana are brothers and they are sons of late Venkataramayya and Ramanamma. The three sons of S. Venkataramayya partitioned the joint family properties under a registered partition deed dated 28.11.1957. According to the plaintiffs, the suit schedule property fell to the share of late Venkataramayya. The said Venkataramayya died interstate leaving behind his wife and three sons. The father of the plaintiffs Satyanarayana died leaving behind plaintiffs 1 to 3 and Ramanamma who is wife of late Venkataramayya in the year 1991. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 and D3 have l/3rd share and D1 and D2 have 2/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties. D1, according to the plaintiffs, is managing the suit schedule properties on behalf of sharers and distributing the income to all the share holders. Since D1 did not pay any amount to the plaintiffs and D3 for the last two years and postponed the payment on some pretext or the other, the plaintiffs demanded for partition of the suit schedule property. Since the demand is not acceded to by D1, they resorted to file a suit for partition,

(3.) It is the case of D1 that the father of the plaintiff separated himself from the joint family in the year 1961. D1 used to assist his father in cultivation. The properties fell to the share of late Venkataramayya are situated in agency tract and whereas the properties belonging to Dl are situated at Taduvai. Late Venkataramayya became indebted to various persons. Since the property fell to the share of late Venkataramayya are situated in agency tract and are inalienable, Dl sold the properties fell to the share and discharged the debts of late Venkataramayya. Late Venkataramayya during his lifetime executed a WILL dated 29,12.1985 bequeathing item Nos.l, 2 and 4 in plaint schedule to Dl and item No.5 to his fifth daughter. By virtue of the Will, Dl is in possession of item Nos.1, 2 and 4 of the plaint schedule properties as an absolute owner. The trial Court settled the following issues :