ATLURU SARASWATAMMA Vs. ATLURU PADDAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Temporary Subordinate Judge held that Ex. V was admissible in evidence and the District Judge disagreed with him and refused to admit it, on the ground that it was unregistered. The material question to be decided in this appeal is, whether there was a division between the plaintiff, the first defendant and the second defendant's husband and whether the document above referred to can be admitted in evidence. The facts necessary for the decision of this question may be very briefly stated.

(2.) The first defendant and the deceased husband of the second defendant were brothers, being the sons of the plaintiff. The suit is for partition. The second defendant contends that a partition was effected during the lifetime of her husband and that Ex. V. embodies the terms thereof, that, under it, of the 12 acres of land which the family possessed, each son obtained about 5 acres odd, and the plaintiff, the father, was allotted for his maintenance 1 acre and SO cents. It may be stated that the plaintiff ignoring this arrangement claims in the suit a moiety of the property; but there is an alternative prayer in the plaint to the effect that he may be allotted one-third of the property in the event of the court holding that there was a partition in the lifetime of the second defendant's husband. The Subordinate Judge holding that there was a completed partition, dismissed the plaintiff's suit, and the District Judge, having decided that the partition was effected only between the two brothers and that the plaintiff was not a party to it and was not bound thereby and therefore that the plaintiff was entitled to a half share, reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge and remanded the suit for disposal on the other issues framed in the case.

(3.) It must be stated at the outset that Ex. V the deed of partition relied on by the second defendant, was executed only by the first defendant and the deceased husband of the second defendant and that it was not registered.