VUTUKURU SUNEETHAMMA Vs. SURAMPALLY VENKAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned VII Additional District Judge, Khammam (for short 'the learned Judge') in O.S.No.128 of 2017 (O.S.No.291 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Khammam) dtd. 24/12/2018, the appellant/plaintiff filed the present appeal seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/5th share in the suit schedule property.

(2.) Heard Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and Sri Shaik Abdul Kalam Riyaz, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S.A.Razak, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/defendant Nos.1 to 3.

(3.) The appellant/plaintiff filed suit for partition and separate possession of suit schedule Item No.1 and Item No.2 properties consisting of irrigated dry land to an extent of Ac.10.20 Gts. in Sy.No.270/A and Ac.12.24 Gts. in Sy.No.360 of Konijerla Village and Mandal, Khammam District, within the boundaries detailed in the plaint schedule. The respondents/defendants are the mother (respondent No.1), brother (respondent No.2) and sisters (respondent Nos.3 and 4). The appellant is the daughter of respondent No.1 and Late Surampalli Narsaiah. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of said Surampalli Narsaiah. He died about 50 years prior to filing of the suit while the appellant and respondent Nos.2 to 4 were minors. Thereafter, respondent No.1 became kartha of the family and managed the suit schedule properties. All the four children of respondent No.1 i.e. appellant and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are married. At the time of marriage, all the three daughters were given Ac.4.00 Gts. of land towards their share. The appellant was also allotted Ac.4.00 Gts. of land. Said land was cultivated by respondent No.2 and his son and usufruct was given for about 35 years. Thereafter, respondent Nos.1 and 2 developed greedy eye and denied to give yield for the year 2010 onwards. A panchayath was called for and in spite of advice of elders, respondent Nos.1 and 2 refused to give yield and therefore, the appellant filed suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/5th share out of the suit schedule properties.