AGASTI KARUNA Vs. CHERUKURI KRISHNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unsuccessful plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants herein. O.S.No.3 of 1977 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Baptala was filed by the plaintiffs for partition of item Nos.2 and 4 of the plaint 'A' schedule in to four equal shares and to allot one such share to each of the two plaintiffs and for delivery of separate possession and also for declaration that the plaintiffs are successors in respect of Item No.1 of plaint 'A' schedule and that they are entitled to 1/3rd share in the plaint 'A' schedule properties.

(2.) For the sake of convenience the parties in this appeal would be referred to in accordance with their ranking in the suit.

(3.) The plaint averments in brief are as set out hereunder: - Plaintiffs 1 and 2 claim themselves to be the daughters of late Pandalaneni Hanumantha Rao, hereinafter referred to as 'Hanumantha Rao' for the sake of convenience. Defendant No.3 is the son and defendant No.4 is the wife of late Hanumantha Rao, Late Hanumantha Rao was having plaint 'A' schedule properties. Item No.1 of plaint 'A' schedule is Ac.1-00 of wet land situate in Khajipalam village. Item No.2 is Ac.1-04 cents of wet land in D.No.457/6 of Khajipalem village. Item No.5 is Ac.0-61 cents of wet land in item No,2. Item No.3 is Ac.0-29 cents of wet land in D.No.457/5 and item No.4 is a vacant site of Ac.0-05 cents which is house-site. Regarding item No.1 it is the case of the plaintiffs that late Hanumantha Rao executed a registered gift deed dated 16-5-1945 conferring life estate on the 4th defendant Nagendramma and the vested remainder in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have accepted these gifts and according to them they are entitled for declaration of title and possession of the said land. Regarding items 2 to 5 of plaint 'A' schedule, the plaintiffs' case is as set out hereunder: - In 1961 late Hanumantha Rao died in testate and possessed of items 2 to 4 of plaint 'A' schedule and leaving behind him the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 as his legal representatives. Each of the plaintiffs is entitled to 1/4th share as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and in item No.l of the plaint 'A' schedule each of the plaintiffs has l/3rd share. According to the plaintiffs, defendants 1 and 2 in collusion with the 4th defendant Nagendramma brought into existence some documents without any consideration. The 2nd defendant purchased item No.5 of plaint 'A' schedule under a registered sale-deed dated 12-3-1964 executed by the 4th defendant on her behalf as well as guardian of the 3rd defendant. The 1st defendant is in unlawful possession of items 1 and 2 and an extent of Ac.0-42-3/4 cents in item No.2. According to the plaintiffs, defendants 1 and 2 did not get any valid title and the transactions are void in law. Plaintiffs further contended that the 4th defendant did not obtain any permission from the Court before alienating the properties as per the requirement of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and that the alienations are bad in law.