JAMMULA LAKSHMIPATI Vs. JAMMULA NARASIMHA MURTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant against the decision of the trial Court in dismissing the suit for partition.

(2.) THE genealogy relating to the parties is extracted below : GENEALOGYLokanadham_________________________|_______________________________| | | | |Sitaram Srirangam Narasimha Satyanarayan Lakshmipati(Dead) Murth(D -1) (D -2) (Pltff.) -Bangaramrna -Sridevi(D -4) (D -6)___________|_____________| |Kedarnath Kasturibai(0 -3) (D -5) (Foster daughter) It is alleged that defendant No. 3 is the adopted son of Srirangam and defendant No. 7 is the daughter of defendant No. 1. Defendants 3 and 5 are the legatees under a will executed by Srirangam. As per the plaintiff's case, the disputed properties were acquired out of the joint family properties but had been left out in the partition, which had taken place in 1971. The further case of the plaintiff is that earlier O. S. No. 89 of 1941 had been filed for partition of joint family properties and the same was compromised, but except Sitaram who separated others remained joint. The parents of the plaintiff expired in the year 1960 and 1961. Though in 1863 a document of partition was executed, the same was not acted upon and the plaintiff, defendants 1, 2 and Srirangam continued to remain joint. Ultimately in 1971 the properties of the Joint family were partitioned excepting the suit schedule properties. It is asserted that since the disputed properties had been acquired out of the joint family property and had not been partitioned in the year 1971, the same should be partitioned.

(3.) THE trial Court framed several issues. It found that defendant No. 3 was the adopted son of Srirangam. It further found that since there was no joint family which was previously partitioned, the disputed properties had been acquired by various purchasers by their own account and cannot be treated as joint family property.