ALLURI SURANNA Vs. CHEDALAVADU SUBBARAYUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 6 defendant and representatives of the deceased 5 defendant, hereinafter referred to as defendants 5 and 6 and persons claiming under them are the appellants. The suit was brought for partition and separate possession of one-fourth share of a plot of land described as pati site and said to be roughly 11,000 and odd square yards in extent, which had been the property of a family of Zamindars of which the surviving representatives are defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4 and of whom, according to the plaintiff's case, the 1 defendant was entitled to one- half of the property, the 2nd defendant to one-fourth and defendants 3 and 4 to the other one-fourth. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the share of the defendants 3 and 4 from their father by a sale deed of 1901.

(2.) The defendants 5 and 6, who were the principal contesting defendants, contended that the defendants 3 and 4 were not entitled to any share of the property at all but that the 1 defendant was entitled to one-half and the 2nd defendant to the other half and that by two sale deeds of 1915 and 1920 they (appellants-defendants 5 and 6) had become entitled to both the halves and they also pleaded that the plaintiff had not been in possession of his alleged share within 12 years of the suit. The principal issues were the first three, namely- 1. Has the plaintiff title to the suit site? 2. Has the plaintiff possession of the suit site within 12 years before the date of the suit? and

(3.) Is the suit in time? 3. On the first issue as to title, both the Lower Courts have concurrently found that defendants 3 and 4, the plaintiff's vendors, are entitled to one-fourth share and I have heard nothing from the appellants learned advocate how this can be attacked. On the question of possession, the District Munsif held that the plaintiff being the purchaser from a coparcener in an undivided Hindu family was not entitled as such to possession of any share of the alienated property and that in any case the plaintiff had not shown that he was in possession of the share sued for within 12 years of the suit. He dismissed the suit. The learned Judge on appeal was inclined to take the same view as to the nature of the plaintiff's purchase, that it was from a coparcener in an undivided Hindu family. But he took the view that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed on the ground that the land having been vacant unoccupied site on which no cultivation was done, possession up to within the 12 years period before the suit must be deemed to have been with the persons who had a title and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to succeed. On this ground he gave the plaintiff a decree as prayed.