K. KUSUMAMBA Vs. P. SASIBHUSHANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nawarangpur (as it was then), in Title Appeal No. 4/1992 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. Munsif, Nawarangpur in Title Suit No. 16/1989. By the said judgment the suit filed by the present appellant as the plaintiff against the respondent/defendant, has been dismissed.

(2.) For the shake of convenience, for clarity and in order to avoid confusion the parties herein after have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the Court below.

(3.) The plaintiffs suit is for partition of a house standing over a piece of land measuring an area of Ac. 0.015 decimals in Nawarangpur Town. She has claimed ? ..?th share over the same. One V. Krishna Murty has two sons namely V. Jagannath Swami and V. Laxman Swami and four daughter namely Damayanti and three other through his first wife Mani Kayama. Damayanti married in a village in the State of Andhara Pradesh. In the year 1956, she purchased the suit house by registered sale deed and started staying there having returned from her earlier place of stay. It is stated that after death of the first wife, V. Krishna Murty kept V. Panyabati (Defendant No. 5) with him for which ultimately they were driven out by his sons and they had to take shelter in the house of Damayanti. The shelter was given by Damayanti with an understanding that they would leave the house after arranging an accommodation or on getting share from their sons. It is the further case that though several times amicable settlement was attempted to resolve the dispute between V. Krishna Murty on one hand and his sons on other, those did not fructify. After the death of Damayanti, the plaintiff being her daughter with other brothers and sisters allowed V. Krishna Murty to live in the house like that. In this way the dispute between V. Krishna Murty and his sons presorted for long time and V. Krishna Murty died. So, again request came from the side of defendant no. 5 to allow her to stay in the house. But despite of the fact that the defendant no. 5 became capable of earning in course of time and started petty business, she did not show any interest to leave the house. Other co-shareds also did not take any interest in that regard. So ultimately she filed the suit for eviction of defendant no. 5 also for partition.