ANUMANDLA KARUNA Vs. ANUMANDLA JAN REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O.S.No.92 of 1997, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad, are the appellants challenging the judgment, dtd. 26/4/2004 partly dismissing the suit filed for partition of the suit schedule joint family movable and immovable properties shown in suit schedule-I & II with metes and bounds and for allotment of 1/4th share to the plaintiffs, for appointment of commissioner to divide the same with metes and bounds and for a decree for recovery of Rs.1,60,000.00 being the dowry amount and other articles received by the first defendant after and subsequent to the marriage of first plaintiff, described as Schedule-III. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

(2.) Plaintiff No. 1 is the wife and the plaintiff No. 2 is the son of A. Venkat Reddy, who is the son of defendant Nos. 1 & 3 and brother of defendant Nos. 2 & 4. The defendant No. 5 is the purchaser of one of the items of joint family property. Sri Venkat Reddy died in a road accident that took place on 3/1/1995. According to the plaintiffs, one electrical shop having business worth Rs.2,00,000.00 was established by the husband of plaintiff No. 1; and the house bearing Nos. 5/3/159 & 4-199, situated at Kesamudram are the joint family residential houses. That apart, the joint family is having household articles worth Rs.3,00,000.00 and cash of Rs.5,00,000.00 in addition to LIC policies. The parents of plaintiff No. 1 presented Rs.1,00,000.00 as dowry; Rs.30,000.00 towards gift to the sisters of A. Venkat Reddy. Two policies stand in the name of A. Venkat Reddy out of which, one policy amount was received by the defendant No. 1. Upon the death of husband of plaintiff No. 1, when a dispute was raised before the elders, the elders prepared an award, but it was not acted upon. In order to evade legitimate share in the properties, the defendant No. 1 filed O.P. No. 663 of 1995 seeking custody of plaintiff No. 2. When the plaintiffs issued legal notice demanding partition of the properties and to return the LIC policy amount, the defendants replied the same with false allegations. Hence, the suit.

(3.) Contesting the suit, the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 filed a written statement denying the averments in the plaint. According to them, the electrical business at Kesamduram was started with the funds of defendant No. 3, who received an amount of Rs.3,00,000.00 towards sale proceeds of the land gifted by her parents towards Stridhana and therefore, it is the exclusive business of defendant No. 3. In fact, certain amount of defendant No. 3 was spent for construction of two houses in the land of joint family. The joint family is having only two houses and that the plaintiff No. 2 is having a share in the said two houses along with defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The joint family is not having household articles worth of Rs.3,00,000.00 as alleged by the plaintiffs, but it is worth of Rs.30,000.00. They specifically denied the holding of cash Rs.5,00,000.00 by joint family. According to them, no dowry worth Rs.1,00,000.00 and no gifts worth Rs.30,000.00 were given to the sisters of late A. Venkat Reddy. It is admitted that after the death of A. Venkat Reddy, the defendant No. 4 had received Rs.2,30,900.00 from LIC being the policy amount and had deposited Rs.1,40,600.00 in the name of plaintiff No. 2 which was withdrawn by plaintiff No. 1. According to them, except the house property, there is no other joint family property for partition. An amount of Rs.5,000.00 in Kakatiya Grameena Bank and Rs.9,600.00 in the S.B. account of A. Venkat Reddy in SBI bank, Warangal was there. They are ready for partition of the joint family property i.e., house property only. The defendant No. 5, initially having filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.1, subsequently, filed an additional written statement contending that he is no way concerned with the joint family properties and that he had not purchased any joint family property.