PUJARI CHANGAL REDDY Vs. M SANTHA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 3 to 5 have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chittoor in O.S.No.50/68 in a suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiffs, who are the purchasers of the property from defendants 3 to 5.

(2.) The plaint allegations in brief are that the properties belong to the joint family of Pujari Venkata Reddy (great grand father of defendants 3 to 5) Narayana Reddy (the grand father of defendants 1 and 2) and Chinna Reddy; that the relationship of the parties is shown in the Geneological Tree appended to the plaint; that Chinna Reddy's branch having become extinct, defendants 1 and 2 representing the branch of Narayana Reddy have one share; that defendants 3 to 5, who represent the branch of Venkata Reddy, are entitled to the remaining half share, that during the childhood of defendants 3 to 5, their mother went to Dhanojavaripalle to manage the properties got from her father; that defendants 3 to 5 have been coming to their ancestral village to help defendants 1 and 2 at 5 the time of harvest and they have been taking their portion of the income from the ancestral properties in the shape of cash and grain; that the 1st defendant, who has been the manager of the joint family, has been paying the cist; that about one year prior to the filing of the suit, defendants 3 to 5 have unequivocally expressed their intention to become divided from defendants 1 and 2; that there is division in status; that defendants 3 to 5 have sold their half share in the suit properties on 25-1-1968 to the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs.52,000/- and that the plaintiffs, who have become the co-owners with defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the plaint schedule properties, are entitled for partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit properties. They further pleaded that after the plaintiffs became co-owners, the 1st defendant executed three sale deeds in favour of defendants 6 to 8 in order to show that he is the absolute owner of the properties.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 opposed the suit pleading that Ex.A-1 is a nominal sale deed not supported by consideration. The 1st defendant admitted the alienations made in favour of defendants 6 to 8 but pleaded that he made those alienations as the absolute owner. The defence set up by the defendants is that Ayal Reddy alias Chengal Reddy filed a suit O.S. No.219/23 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Chittoor against Venkata Reddy (father of defendants 3 to 5), Subba Reddy (father of the 1 st defendant) and the father of the second defendant, claiming partition in items 4,11,15,17,18,21,22,23,39,40,42 and 45; that the said suit was decreed; that A.S.No.169/26 on the file of the District Court, Chittoor, was dismissed; that the said Ayal Reddy alias Chengal Reddy after dividing his share, mortgaged his property on 31-1-1927 to N. Venkataswamy Naidu; that the said Venkatswamy Naidu assigned the debt in favour of Budatha Reddy, who filed O.S.No.433/41 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Chittoor, which was decree; that the 1st defendant paid that amount due under the mortgage decree and retained the properties as exclusive owner; that items 24 and 26 do not belong to the joint family; that items 4 and 16 never belonged to the joint family; that items 17 to 20, half share in items 23 and 40 and half share in items 41, 42 and 46 were purchased from Budatha Reddy in an oral sale and the 1 st defendant has perfected his title by adverse possession and that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in the properties.