PAIDIMARRI MAHALAKSHMAMMA Vs. CHATURVEDULA SURYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff who is the daughter of one Rama Somayajulu for possession of the properties mentioned in the plaint and for an account from defendants 1 and 9 for the management of suit properties on plaintiff's behalf and for a decree for payment of such sum as may on the taking of the account be found due to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that her father Rama Somayajulu and the 1 defendant's father, Narasimha Somayajulu were brothers, that they became divided by a registered deed of partition in 1902, that since then the properties which fell to the share of Rama Somayajulu were in Rama Somayajulu's possession and on his death were taken possession of and managed by the 1 defendant on behalf of the plaintiff and her mother and that the plaintiff is entitled to the property. She also states that the defendant refused to hand over, though demanded, the properties said to have fallen to the share of Rama Somayajulu in partition (items 1 to 5) and properties purchased subsequent to the partition in name of Appayya, Rama Somayajulu's father-in-law, which are items 7 to 10. As regards items 7 to 10, the case of the plaintiff was that Appayya transferred the properties to her father and that she is entitled to the property.

(2.) The case of the contesting defendant is that although there was a deed of partition in 1902, such deed was never intended to be acted upon so far as the brothers were concerned, but the object was to separate Pattabhiramayya and Gopalakrishnayya, cousins of Rama Somayajulu and Narasimha Somayajulu, and when that was done Narasimha Somayajulu and Rama Somayajulu remained joint and undivided. The intention of Rama Somayajulu and Narasimha Somayajulu was not to divide the properties and become separate inter se. Even if the document could be construed to indicate that intention there must be deemed to have been a re-union as they never divided their properties as contemplated in the document and continued to be members of an undivided family. There were joint leases and joint dealings and after the death of Rama Somayajulu his widow and his daughter lived with Narasimha Somayajulu and were maintained and supported by him, and Narasimha Somayajulu bore the marriage expenses of the plaintiff. It is also urged that the claim is barred by limitation as plaintiff attained majority more than three years before the filing of the suit.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that Narasimha Somayajulu and Rama Somayajulu were members of a joint family. According to his view there was no partition inter se between Rama Somayajulu and Narasimha Somayajulu. He also believes that subsequent to the partition there was re-union. Exhibit XV, the memorandum of re-union, alleged on the side of the defendant to have been executed by Rama Somayajulu and Narasimha Somayajulu and said to be a forgery by the plaintiff is accepted by the Subordinate Judge as genuine. He also deals with the conduct of the parties as evidenced by correspondence and other documents and comes to the conclusion that the brothers were undivided. As regards items 7 to 10, he gives a decree for the plaintiff on the ground that they were the self-acquisitions of. Rama Somayajulu and not the joint properties of the two brothers. The plaintiff appeals against the decree of the Subordinate Judge for possession of items 1 to 6 and the 1 defendant files a memorandum of objections as regards items 7 to 10.