LAWS(TLNG)-2023-8-22

KUMARI KRISHNA VENI Vs. GYNI VENKATI

Decided On August 22, 2023
Kumari Krishna Veni Appellant
V/S
Gyni Venkati Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 4 of 1999 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the District judge, Nizamabad, dtd. 22/6/2004. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking partition of the suit schedule properties and for allotment of 1/3rd share in her favour and for future mesne profits from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of 1/3rd share.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to in terms of their rank and status before the Trial Court.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the daughter of defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 married one Lingu Bai. Sometime after the marriage, as Lingu Bai fell sick, the defendant No. 1 married Rajamani, who is none other than the sister of Lingu Bai. Defendant No. 2 is the son born to defendant No. 1 through the first wife, Lingu Bai. The plaintiff is the daughter born to defendant No. 1 through the second wife, Rajamani. The suit schedule properties i.e., agricultural land to an extent of Ac.6.24 guntas in Nizamabad Shivar and two houses at Kotagally, Nizamabad, described as various items of suit schedule A & B properties, are the ancestral immovable properties succeeded by the defendant No. 1. According to the plaintiff, she being the unmarried daughter of defendant No. 1, is in joint possession and coparcener of the Joint Hindu Family of defendant No. 1 and therefore, she is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. In spite of the demand made by the plaintiff through her mother for partition of the suit schedule properties and for delivery of her share, the defendant No. 1 postponed the same on one pretext or the other, as such, the plaintiff approached the defendant No. 1, along with elders, on 14/2/1999 and demanded for partition of the properties, but the defendant No. 1 refused for the partition of the properties. Hence, she laid the suit for partition and separation possession of 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties.