(PEDDI REDDI) JOGI REDDI Vs. PAREM CHINNABIREDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit, instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that he and Defendants 1 to 3 are each entitled to one-fourth of the plaint schedule movable and immovable properties, including debts, for the recovery of the plaintiff's one-fourth share of these properties, making him liable for one-fourth of the debts mentioned in Schedule D and for a declaration that certain alienations are not binding on him.

(2.) The facts of the case are not seriously disputed. The plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 with their deceased brother Bali Reddi formed members of a joint Hindu family. Jogi Reddi, the 3 defendant, who is the appellant before us, is the son of their sister Sanjainma, who married a Christian. On the death of his father, Jogi Reddi and his mother lived with his uncles as members of one household. It is admitted that when Jogi Reddi came to live in the family, he had considerable properties. All these properties were managed by his uncles, along with the family properties and fresh acquisitions were made to the family properties from the income of these properties and also-by the joint labour and skill of the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 and Jogi Reddi. In course of time, Jogi Reddi, though a Christian, married his Hindu cousin, the daughter of the deceased Bali Reddi. This, family, composed of the Hindus and a Christian, lived together in peace, for a quarter of a century, when the plaintiff demanded partition. A partition karar was, therefore, entered into between the various parties to the suit but the attempt to divide the movables, immovables and the debts proving abortive, the plaintiff instituted the suit for partition, which has given rise to this second appeal.

(3.) Briefly stated, the 3 defendant's contentions were that the properties standing in his own name, which are admittedly large, should be treated as his own properties, that he should be given at share in the family properties, or in any event, the parties to the suit are bound by the partition arrangement, entered into, between them in April, 1916. On these contentions, the lower appellate Court held that the partition karar, being an unregistered document, was inadmissible in evidence, that there is absolutely no satisfactory evidence to show that the family intended to keep the properties of Jogi Reddi separate, that all the properties were treated as the common properties of the whole family of which the 3 defendant was a member and by a combination of those properties, and the labour and skill of all the members, the family eventually became wealthy. The lower Appellate Court, therefore, gave a decree for the plaintiff, substantially as asked for, after declaring some of the alienation not binding on the plaintiff.