VADLA BALASWAMY Vs. V. SUVARNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed by Vadla Balaswamy against the orders of the Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar in A.S. No. 87 of 2008, dtd. 9/2/2011 confirming the Judgement of the trial court in O.S. No. 80 of 2007 (O.S. No. 175 of 2005), dated 0109-2008.

(2.) Learned counsel for appellant mainly contended that the trial court failed to ascertain that the properties are ancestral and they belong to the appellant's father and he also submitted that the 'B' schedule properties exclusively belong to 'Mangali' people, but it was not considered by both the courts. The schedule properties do not belong to joint family. Plaintiff failed to establish that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties. Suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 27 of 1999 for declaration of suit 'C' schedule property was dismissed on 25/12/2004 and thus present suit for 'C' schedule property is not maintainable. Plaintiff has not stated the correct Survey Numbers in the pleadings and she has strained relationship with her father and thus she is not entitled for the share in the schedule property. At the time of her marriage, she was given gold and dowry and she also constructed a house with the said funds. Moreover, their father died in the year 2001 as such, the amendment of Sec. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005 is not applicable as the succession opened on the death of her father in the year 2001 even before filing of the suit and thus notional partition has to be affected and he is entitled for half share in the property but not 1/3rd share as decided by both the courts. Plaintiff was married much prior to the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act and therefore, she is not entitled for any share.

(3.) The facts before the trial court are that one V. Suvarna filed suit for partition against her brother and sister after the death of their father Vadla Krishnaiah and claimed 1/3rd share as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956, 1986 and 2005. Vadla Krishnaiah died intestate. The properties are his self-acquired properties. Though she issued notice to the defendants they did not affect partition.