VALISHALA BRAHMAIAH Vs. KOPPUJU UMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellants - defendants 1 to 5, being aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree, dtd. 7/10/2005 passed in O.S.No.04 of 2004 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet (for short "the trial Court").

(2.) The parties are addressed herein as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that the defendant No.1 is her father, defendant Nos.2 to 5 are her brothers and defendant No.6 is her sister respectively. Originally, the father of the defendant No.1 i.e. Valishala Muthaiah was the Manager of Joint Hindu Family and that the Joint Hindu family was holding the lands, houses, cash and gold as described in the plaint schedule. After the demise of said Muthaiah, the suit schedule properties were inherited by the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff being the coparcener of the Joint Hindu Family, she is claiming her share in the suit schedule properties. It is her further case that her marriage was performed with one Koppoju Brahma Chary on 2/11/1985 as per Hindu Customs and Rites and that she is blessed with three daughters out of the wedlock. It is further averred that the marriages of defendant Nos.2 to 6 are also performed and that the plaintiff and the defendants are enjoying the suit schedule property jointly and that recently defendant No.1 started mismanaging the suit schedule properties and as such, the plaintiff has demanded for partition and separate possession of her 1/7th share and that initially the defendants have accepted but are not coming forward to effect the same, thus, at the instance of plaintiff a panchayath was held with caste elders and village elders on 15/3/2001 and that the defendants have once again accepted for partition, but still not coming forward to materialize the same. Once again the plaintiff called for a panchayath with the caste elders on 1/4/2001 and in that meeting the defendants refused to partition on the pretext that the plaintiff is having three daughters and that if the properties are partitioned after the marriage of her three daughters, the entire property will go into the hands of third parties and due to said reason, they refused for partition. Hence, the suit.