1
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: GOOTY
Present: Smt L.Thejovathi,
Senior Civil Judge, Gooty.
Friday, this the 16th day of September, 2022.
Original Suit No.104 of 2013
Between: Pulikanuma Sujatha and another …Plaintiffs
And
Macharla Mahesh and 17 others …..Defendants
This suit came up finally on 19.07.2022 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Venkata Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiffs and G.Sreekanth Reddy, Advocates for the Defendant No.1, 3, 16 and 18, S.Siva Rao, Advocate for the defendant No.2, N.R.K. Mohan and Sri R.V.Chalapathi, Advocates for defendant No.4 and defendants 6 to 15 and 17 set exparte and defendant No.5 died and on perusing the material available on record, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this court made the following:
: J U D G M E N T :
1.This is the suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs 2/40th share in the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds, costs and other reliefs.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-
One Macharla Basappa, S/o Macharlappa is resident of Guntakal Town and was the owner of plaint schedule properties which were inherited by him from his ancestors. Macharla Basappa had five sons namely M.Ramanjineyulu,
M.Ramakrishna, M.Parasaramudu, N.Nagaraju and M.Anjineyulu and three daughters namely Renuka, Nagaveni and Parvathi who are the defendants 16 to 18 and out of the sons except the 4th defendant who is the second son of Macharla
Basappa, the other four sons died. The defendant No.5 is the wife of defendant
No.4. Macharla Basappa died on 11.02.1992. The eldest son of Macharla Basappa by name Macharla Ramanjineyulu died on 17.05.2008 and the plaintiffs, the defendant No.1 and 2 are the children of Macharla Ramanjineyulu and 3rd defendant is his wife. The defendant No.6 is wife and defendant No.7 is daughter of
Parasuramudu, defendant No.8 is wife and 9 to 11 are son and daughters of 2
Nagaraju, defendant No.12 is the wife and 13 to 15 are daughters of Anjineyulu.
3.The plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties of Macharla Basappa and there is a house which he owned and possessed by the date of his death surrounded by open site and recently the said house was demolished and the entire site is lying vacant which is fit and useful for house sites. The sons and daughters of
Macharla Basappa are co-parceners and having definite share in the plaint schedule property which were not divided and partitioned. After the death of the brother of defendant No.4, the widow and their children are depending upon the 4th defendant for their survival and taking advantage of the situation, 4th defendant with a malafide intention, to deprive the plaintiffs and other legitimate sharers has executed a gift deed nominally in favour of his wife, defendant No.5 on 01.03.2011 and in fact the 4th defendant has no right to gift the said item as it is a coparcenary property. There is no registered document in favour of 4th defendant to claim absolute right and title over the said property. But being the survival male child he has obtained pattadar pass book in his name without knowledge and consent of other co-parceners and executed the gift deed and the plaintiff came to know about the said gift deed recently and issued a legal notice to the defendants demanding for partition but they did not respond.
4.After the death of Macharla Basappa, his five sons and three daughters will each get 1/8th share in the plaint schedule properties and the plaintiffs father
Ramanjineyulu has got 1/8th share and the plaintiffs 1 and 2, defendants 1, 2 and 3 being legal heirs of Ramanjineyulu will get 1/5th share each in the 1/8th share of
Ramanjineyulu and thus the plaintiffs 1 and 2 will get 1/40th share each whereas the defendants 1 to 3 will get 1/40th share each, the defendant No.4 will get 1/8th share, defendant No.6 and 7 being the legal heirs of Parasuramudu together will get 1/8th share, defendants 8 to 11 together will get 1/8th share, the defendants 12 to 15 who are legal heirs of Anjineyulu will get 1/8th share and the defendants 16 to 18 being the daughters of Macherla Basappa will get 1/8th share each. Thus, the 3 suit.
5.The defendants 1,13,16 and 18 filed their written statement admitting the contents of the plaint and also seeking to pass preliminary decree for partition and separation possession of the plaint schedule properties. The 2nd defendant though filed separate written statement, admitted the contents of plaint. 4th defendant filed his written statement and the 5th defendant adopted the written statement filed by the 4th defendant. They denied the contents of the plaint and contended that the defendants 16 and 18 herein filed the suit O.S.No.60/2004 on the file of Senior Civil
Judge’s Court, Gooty against Gurupadamma, Janakamma, the wives of late
Basappa, M.Ramanjineyulu, M.Ramakrishna, M.Parasuramudu, M.Nagaraju,
Nagaveni, Sarojamma, Bharathi, Dhanalakshmi, Ramachandra against the wives of late Basappa, his sons and some of the defendants herein for partition and separate possession of the said plaint schedule properties and the same was compromised on 30.04.2007 before Lok-Adalath and the defendants 16 and 18 herein were allotted some plots wherein they agreed that they have no rights over the remaining properties and the defendants in the said suit, after allotting the plots to the plaintiffs therein who are the defendants 16 and 18, got partitioned the properties and enjoying the same. Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was divided into plots and registered partition deed was executed on 18.01.2010 between 4th defendant, 3rd defendant, 6, 8 and 12th defendant and from that day each of them are enjoying the their respective shares and plots to the knowledge of plaintiffs and so the question of partition of Item No.2 does not arise.
6.It is further contended by the defendants 4 and 5 that a suit in
O.S.No.245/2012 on the file of this court was filed for partition and separate
possession of the said plaint schedule properties in between the plaintiffs, defendants 1 to 3 and same was also compromised on 16.02.2013 in
PLC.No.19/2013 before Lok-Adalath wherein they admitted the partition deed dated 18.01.2010. The defendants again contended that with regard to item No.1 of the 4 plaint schedule property late Macherla Basappa executed a will on 25.06.1990 bequeathing the same in favour of 4th defendant which is known to his wife and other sons and daughters including the plaintiffs and thus 4th defendant alone has got absolute rights over Item No.1 of the plaint schedule properties and as such it was never shown in O.S.60/2004 and as absolute owner, he executed a gift deed in favour of his wife and it is binding on the plaintiffs and other defendants and that there are no properties left for partition. The plaintiffs knowing the facts, intentionally filed the suit with false allegations and they will not get any share in the plaint schedule properties.
7.Basing the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of 2/40 th share in the plaint schedule properties?
2. Whether the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.245/2012 on the file of this Court as against Defendants 1 to 3 and what is the effect of compromise of the said suit on the plaintiffs, as pleaded in the written statement of defendant No.4?
3. Whether late Basappa executed a will dated 25.06.1990 in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in favour of defendant No.4 or not as pleaded in Written Statement of defendant No.4?
4. To what relief?
8.On behalf of the plaintiffs, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to 6 were marked.
On behalf of the defendants, DW.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B1 to 6 were marked.
9.Heard arguments of learned counsel for the defendants and perused the written arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO.3 :
Whether late Basappa executed a will dated 25.06.1990 in respect of
Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in favour of defendant No.4
or not as pleaded in Written Statement of defendant No.4?
10.It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties were 5 acquired by Basappa, their grandfather, from their ancestors and all the children of late Basappa will get equal share in the said properties, but the 4th defendant obtained pattadar pass book in his favour, without their knowledge and consent and also executed a gift deed infavour of his wife D5, in respect of item No. 1 of suit schedule property, as if he is the absolute owner of the said property and the said gift deed is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs.
11.On the other hand, it is the contention of the 4th defendant that Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property was the self acquired property of his father late
Basappa and during his life time, Basappa executed a will, bequeathing the said property in his favour and after the death of Basappa, D4 acquired absolute right over the said property and he gifted the same to his wife and item no. 2 was already partitioned under registered partition deed, and so the plaintiffs will not get any share in the suit schedule properties. Except the 4th and 5th defendants, the other contesting defendants conceded the request of the plaintiffs to pass decree.
12.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted in his arguments that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to father of Basappa and after the death of
Basappa, all his children will acquire equal rights, where as the 4th defendant contends that it is the self acquired property of Basappa and he executed will infavour of D4, but the 4th defendant has no right to execute any will and it is for the profounder of the will to prove the execution of the will and to remove suspicious circumstances.
13.The learned counsel for the defendants 4 and 5 submitted, that the defendants 16 to 18 filed a suit previously and compromised, and later a partition deed was entered into, again O.S.245/12 was filed and the same was also compromised in PLC and no where it was whispered that item no. 1 of schedule property here in is also available for partition and so they waived their right and also precluded from claiming the relief under order 2 Rule 2 CPC. He further submitted that the will executed by Basappa is proved by examining the attestor of 6 the will and, one of the sister of the 4th defendant as Dw3 also admitted the will, though if she denies the will, she will also get a share.
14.Now in order to decide, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties or not, firstly, it is to be seen, whether the plaint schedule properties are the ancestral or self acquired properties of late
Basappa.
15.There is no dispute that Item No. 2 of plaint schedule property as an ancestral property, since the defendants 4 and 5 did not contend that it is the self acquired property of Basappa. They only contended that the said item was already partitioned. Whether it was already partitioned or not will be discussed later.
16.With regard to Item No.1 of the schedule property, the plaintiffs say that it is ancestral property and the defendants 4 and 5 say that it is self acquired property of Basappa. Even according to the defendants 4 and 5, except item no. 1 of the present suit schedule property, all the other properties of late Basappa are ancestral properties. Though they did not specifically state so, they did not contend anywhere that late Basappa had some other properties, apart from item no.1 here in, acquired by himself. Moreover, they pleaded about filing of earlier suits for partition and their compromise and giving share to all the shares etc. So, according to them, item no.1 alone is the self acquired property of late Basappa. But the defendants 4 and 5 did not file any document to show that item No.1 was purchased by late
Basappa. They did not even mention in their written statement, as to how and when Basappa acquired the said property. They also did not mention in their written statement, that item no.1 is the self acquired property of Basappa. They only mentioned in the written statement that “with regard to item no.1 of the plaint schedule property, late
Macharla Basappa has executed a will on 25-06-1990 bequeathing the
same infavour of this 4 th defendant and the same is known to his wives,
other sons and daughters of late Basappa including the plaintiffs. Thus the
4 th defendant alone has got absolute rights over item no.1 of plaint
schedule properties and the same was treated as his absolute and own
property and as such the item o.1 of plaint schedule property was never
7 shown in O.S.No.60/04 as stated above.”
17.Except saying that late Basappa executed a will, the defendants 4 and 5 did not contend either in the written statement or in the evidence of D4 as Dw1, that it is the self acquired property of Basappa and as to when and how Basappa acquired the said property. In Ex.B1 the partition deed, it is mentioned as “the properties acquired from our ancestors”. None of the witnesses, examined on behalf of the defendants 4 and 5, deposed as to when and from whom Basappa acquired item no.1 of the plaint schedule property. Admittedly, by the date of death of Basappa, they were residing as joint family.
18.The 4th defendant as DW1., though stated in his cross examination that his father himself acquired 23 acres of land, admitted that he had no document to show the same. He further stated that he does not know from whom and in which year, his father acquired the said property. Dw1 further stated that he was aged 35 or 40 years by the date of death of his father. So if really, his father Basappa purchased the properties, his sons will definitely have knowledge about the same, as they all resided jointly till the death of their father. Ex.A2 the pattadar adangal filed by the plaintiffs, shows that the said item No.1 of the pliant schedule property
I.e an extent of Ac.5.25 cents in S.No.314-C stands in the name of D4 and the nature of enjoyment is shown as acquired from ancestors(Pitrarjitam). So it cannot be said that item no.1 of the plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of late Basappa. Then Basappa has no right to bequeath the said property to anybody.
19.However, it is also to be seen whether Late Basappa executed the will Ex.B6 bequeathing item no.1 of the plaint schedule property infavour of D4 or not?
20.According to the defendants 4 and 5, late Basappa executed a will on 25-06-1990 bequeathing item no.1 of plaint schedule property infavour of D4 and the same is known to the wives of Basappa, other sons and daughters including the 8 plaintiffs. D4 did not mention in his written statement as to when he came to know about the said will, where and who scribed it.
21.The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted in his arguments, that the said will was not executed by late Basappa, and it is for the propounder of the will i.e.
the 4th defendant, to prove the execution of the will and to remove the suspicious circumstances. The learned counsel for the defendants 4 and 5 submitted that they have proved the will by examining attestor of the will as DW.4.
22.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs also relied on the decisions reported in 2022(2) ALD 283 SC , A.I.R. 1977 SC 74 and 2015 (3) ALD 78 SC where in it was held that it is the propounder of the will who, has to, remove and explain the suspicious circumstances and, has to satisfy the court that the will was duly executed by the testator.
23.DW.4 deposed that late Basappa executed Ex.B6 will at his house, in the presence of himself, another attestor and scribe. In the cross examination, he stated that one C.C Venkatramudu a document writer was a good friend of
Basappa. He further stated that one Reddappa, resident of Anantapuram, scribed the will and he had no acquaintance with the said Reddappa and he saw him only on the date of execution of Ex.B6. He further stated that there are six or seven licensed document writers in Guntakal. It is his further evidence that Basappa informed him that when he went to Anantapuram for treatment, he brought
Reddeppa to his house along with him and the stamps were also brought from
Anantapuram.
24.Admittedly, late Basappa is a well reputed person in Guntakal and he used to conduct civil panchayats to settle the disputes. It is also an admitted fact that the registrar office is at a distance of 1 kilometer from his house. When he knows the document writers in his own village and the stamps were also available in his own village, there is no need to bring either the stamps or the document writer from 9
Anantapuram. It is not contended by D4 that his father Basappa took treatment in
Anantapuram at any point of time. More over D4(DW1) stated in his cross examination, that his father was suffering from liver problem since 10 years prior to his death and he confined himself to Guntakal only. So, the said evidence of Dw4 that Basappa brought the document writer from Anantapuram to execute the will creates suspicion.
25.According to the defendant No.4, his mother handed over the will to him
before her death in the hospital. It is not known how could she expect her death in
the hospital and how and why, she took the will with her to the hospital. If she intends to hand over the will to his son, she can do it even before going to the hospital. When she was on death bed, how can she took the will with her to the hospital, without the help of any body. Moreover, though D4 did not say when his mother died, Dw2 and Dw5 stated that the mother of d4 died in the year 2009. So, according to D4, the will was handed over to him in the year 2009. But admittedly for the first time the will was produced before the court in this suit on 01-08-2018.
No reply notice was also issued by the defendant no.4, to the notice of the plaintiffs, though it was received by him.
26.The 4th defendant stated in his written statement and also in his evidence, that since item no.1 was bequeathed to him by his father, it was not included in the earlier suits in O.S.60/2004 or 245/2012. It shows that he has got knowledge about the said will even by the year 2004. He also obtained pattadar pass book and his name was entered in the revenue records, for item no.1 of the suit schedule property. He also executed a gift deed infavour of his wife. But, no where he mentioned about the said will. In the revenue records, the nature of enjoyment is shown as ‘ Pitrarjitam’. In the gift deed, he got mentioned that he got right over the said gifted property, through the pattadar pass book. When himself and all the other sons and daughters of Basappa were aware of the said will, it is not known, what prevented him, from, producing the said will before the revenue officials and 10 get his name mutated, or, mentioning it in the gift deed executed by him.
27.DW.2 stated in his cross examination that “in 1991, Basappa informed him that he was intending to execute will deed but he had not seen the will deed and
Basappa had not informed him that he executed the will”. But the will is dated 25-06-1990. If it was executed in the year 1990 itself, the question of informing his intention to execute the will, to Dw2 in the year 1991 does not arise.
Admittedly, Basappa had about 20 acres of land on the date of his death. It is also admitted that Basappa had not partitioned his properties during his life time. Ex.B6 will is only in respect of item no.1 of the suit schedule property. There is no reason why he did not include the other properties in the said will. Admittedly, one of the daughter of Basappa is physically handicapped and no property was allotted by him to the said daughter who was unmarried by the date of his death.
28.The plaintiffs got summoned the registered sale deed, executed by Basappa during his life time, from the file of Hon’ble VI Additional District Judge. Dw4 admitted about the said sale deed executed by Basappa. It is a settled law that the court has got power to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures, as per sec.73 of Indian Evidence Act and also as per the ruling relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in AIR 1977 SC. 74. Accordingly, this court inclined to compare the disputed signatures of late Basappa on Ex.B6 with the admitted signatures on Ex.A6.
29.The letters in the name of Basappa in Telugu in the signature in Ex.B6 are straight. But the said letters in Ex.A6 are slightly slant. The initial in the surname as ‘M’ in Ex.B6 is also entirely different from that of the initial ‘M’ in Ex.A6. On a bare look at both the signatures, it can be said that they are not similar and identical in each and every letter.
30.According to the plaintiffs, there is no document writer by name Reddeppa and it is a fictitious person and there is no necessity for Basappa, who is having well 11 acquaintance and friendship with document writers in Guntakal, to bring a document writer all the way from Ananthapur. The only evidence adduced by defendant no.4 to prove the will is Dw4, the attestor of the will. Dw1 the profounder of the will was not present according to him and he does not know about the execution of said will till it was handed over to him. Dw4, the attestor of the will, was also suggested that the document writer by name Reddeppa is a fictitious person. But the defendant No.4 did not choose to examine the said scribe.
31.All these circumstances create any amount of suspicion, as to the execution of Ex.B6 will by late Basappa. It is the propounder of the will, ie, the 4th defendant, who has to remove the above suspicious circumstances and prove the execution of will by Basappa, by cogent and convincing evidence, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. But the evidence adduced by the defendants 4 and 5 is not at all convincing and reliable to hold that Ex.B6 will was executed by late Basappa.
ISSUE No.2 and 3:
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate
possession of 2/40 th share in the plaint schedule properties?
3. Whether the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.245/2012 on the file of
this Court as against Defendants 1 to 3 and what is the effect of
compromise of the said suit on the plaintiffs, as pleaded in the
written statement of defendant No.4?
32.It is the contention of the defendants 4 and 5 that the defendants 16 and 18 filed a suit in O.S.60/2004 on the file of this court against Gurupadamma,
Janakamma the wives of Basappa, and their brothers etc for partition and separate possession of the said suit schedule properties and the same was compromised on 30-04-2007 before lok adalat and as per the award, the defendants 16 and 18 were allotted plots in S.No.296-A3 and 298-A/1 where in they agreed that they have no rights in the remaining properties of the said suit and the remaining properties were 12 partitioned by the defendants in the said suit and enjoying the same and so there are no properties left for partition. They also contended that the suit in
O.S.245/2012 was also filed on the file of this court for partition and separate
possession of the said suit schedule properties in between plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 and it was also compromised on 16-02-2013 in PLC No.19/2013 before Lok adalat where in they admitted the registered partition deed dt.18-01-2010 under which item no.2 of the present plaint schedule property was also partitioned.
33.The learned counsel for the defendants 4 and 5 submitted in his arguments that in the earlier suits none of the parties contended that item no.1 of the present plaint schedule property was not included and it is also liable for partition and so they waived their right and precluded from claiming any right over the suit schedule properties under Order 2 Rule 2 of Civil Procedure code.
34.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted in his argument that on the ground that the defendants 16 and 18 did not include the present schedule properties in the suit filed by them, the plaintiffs cannot be precluded from claiming right over the said properties and, under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, it is the plaintiffs in the earlier suit who are precluded from claiming a relief which they omits to claim, though available at the time of filing earlier suit, but not the defendants, and here the earlier suit was filed by the defendants 16 and 18 and not the plaintiffs or their father.
35.The suit in O.S.60/2004 was filed by the defendants 16 and 18 the daughters of Basappa against their mother, brothers etc. for partition of properties. The father of plaintiffs was one of the defendants in the said suit. Under the compromise, in the said suit, some plots were allotted to the plaintiffs there in who are defendants 16 and 18 herein. No allotment was made to the defendants there in, under the said compromise, but it was mentioned that the plaintiffs there in have no right in the remaining properties of the said suit. Exs.B3 to B5 are the certified copies of award in O.S.60/2004, petition in PLC19/2013 and the award in PLC.19/13 13 respectively.
36.Admittedly, item No.1 of the present plaint schedule property is not the subject matter of the said suit. Subsequent to the above compromise, the defendants there in partitioned the remaining properties under registered partition deed Dt. 18-01-2010. Pw1 also admitted that her mother is a party to the said partition deed which is marked as Ex.B1. But Item No. 1 of the suit schedule property is not the subject matter of Ex.B1.
37.The PLC and the suit in O.S.245/2012 are with regard to the properties allotted to the mother of plaintiffs under Ex.B1. The plaintiffs, their brothers and mother entered into a partition, under Ex.B2, of their family properties including the properties given to their family under Ex.B1. So item No. 1 of the present suit schedule property is not the subject matter of any of the above documents or the suits.
38.The learned counsel for the defendants submitted in his arguments that nowhere in the written statements, the parties in the earlier suits contended that item no.1 of the present suit schedule property is also liable for partition, and so they precluded from claiming right over the same now under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.
But, it is the evidence of the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant I.e Dw5, that it was agreed not to partition those properties till the death of their mothers.
39.Apart from it under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, every suit must include the whole claim that a party is entitled to and when a part of a claim is relinquished, the same cannot be sued for, thereafter. Here in this case, it is not the plaintiffs who filed the earlier suit in OS 60/2004 for partition of the properties and the suit filed in O.S 245/12 is only in between the family members of the plaintiffs regarding their family properties, but not regarding the properties of Basappa. So the question of bar under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC does not arise.
40.With regard to item No.2 of the plaint schedule properties, the defendants 4 14 and 5 says that it was partitioned under Ex.B1 partition deed, where under the mother of the plaintiffs is one of the party. Dw5, the brother of the plaintiffs also admitted that Item No.2 was partitioned in the year 2010 after the death of
Gurupadamma. He also stated that in Ex.B1 partition deed item no.2 was shown as open site but no door no. was mentioned. As could be seen from Ex.B1, it shows that the entire extent in S.No.296-A3 and S.No.298-A1 was laid into plots and the sons and daughters in law of Basappa partitioned the said plots under Ex.B1. Pw1 also admitted that her mother signed Ex.B1 as head of their family and her mother was allotted some plots under the said partition deed.
41.In the plaint schedule, Item No.2 is shown as open site of an extent of 1000 sq.yards situated in S.No.296-A3 near D.No.13/206 B. No boundaries are mentioned to the said site. It is not the contention of the plaintiffs that apart from the site partitioned under Ex.B1 in S.No.296-A3, they have got some other site in the same S.No. There is also no evidence, to show, as to the total extent of land owned by their family in S.No.296-A3. Pw1 stated in her cross examination that the house in D.No.13/206-B is also not partitioned. Though she stated that the house in item no.2 was demolished, she cannot say the door no. of the said demolished house. But item no. 2 is shown as open site without boundaries. It is not feasible for identification, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the defendants 4 and 5. There is also no evidence to show that Item No.2 is also available for partition. Except a bare suggestion that what he stated in respect of item no.2 house in his chief affidavit is fasle, nothing was either suggested or elicited from the cross examination of DW.1, with regard to item no.2 of the suit schedule property. Hence, it can be held that item no.2 of the plaint schedule property is not available for partition.
42.Though it is the ancestral property of plaintiffs, after the death of Basappa all his sons and daughters are entitled for equal share as coparcenors as per the amended provisions of Hindu succession Act as rightly contended by the learned 15 counsel for the plaintiffs. Since Basappa had 5 sons and 3 daughters, all the 8 children will get equal shares. Thus the plaintiffs, D1 to D3 who represent the eldest son Ramanjaneyulu will get together 1/ 8th share, the 4th defendant who is the 2nd son of Basappa will get 1/ 8th share, the defendants 6 and 7 being wife and daughter of 3rd son Parasuramudu together will get 1/ 8th share, defendants 8 to 11 being the wife, son and daughters of 4th son Nagaraju will get together 1 / 8th share, defendants 12 to 15 being wife, daughters and son of 5th son Anjaneyulu together will get 1/ 8th share and the defendants 16 to 18 being the daughters of Basappa will get each 1/ 8th share in item no.1 of the plaint schedule properties, as prayed by the plaintiffs.
43.In the light of the above said discussion, it is held that the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of item no.1 of plaint schedule property as prayed by them and they are not entitled for partition of item no.2 of the plaint schedule property.
Issues 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO.4:
To what relief?
44.In the result the suit is partly decreed preliminary to partition item no.1 of the plaint schedule property into 40 equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot 2 such shares to the plaintiffs 1 and 2. The claim of plaintiffs in regard to item no.2 of plaint schedule properties is here by negatived. There is no order as to costs in view of relationship of parties.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 16th day of September, 2022.
Sd/-Smt L.Thojovathi,
Senior Civil Judge
Gooty
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for
Plaintiff Defendant PW.1: B.Santhi DW.1-Macherla Ramakrishna @ Babu DW.2-B.Gopal Reddy DW.3-M.Sujatha 16
DW.4-K.Gopal DW.5-M.Hanuman Prasad
Exhibits marked for the plaintiff
Ex.A1: Certified copy of Gift Deed dated 01.032011 executed by defendant No.4- Ramakrishna in favour of D5-Venkatalakshmi. Ex.A2: Adangal Pahani obtained from Mee-Seva Dated 12.04.2013, Ex.A3: House Tax Receipts, dated 08.04.2013, Ex.A4: Office copy of legal notice, dated 07.03.2013, Ex.A5: Postal Acknowledgments (4 numbers), Ex.A6: Original registered sale deed, dated 19.10.1970 executed by M.Basappa, S/o Mecherlappa in favour of Jelli Lakshmanna.
Exhibits marked for defendant
Ex.B1: Registered Partition deed executed between Defendant No.4, mother of PW.1 and others.
Ex.B2: Registered Partition deed dated 21.03.2013
Ex.B3: Certified copy of Lok-Adalath Award in O.S.No.60/2014, dated 30.04.2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gooty,
Ex.B4: Certified copy of petition in PLC.No.19/2013 on the file of MLSA, Gooty,
Ex.B5: Certified copy of Award in PLC.No.19/2013, dated 16.02.2013,
Ex.B6: Un-Registered Will deed, dated 25.06.1990 executed by Macharla Basappa in his of defendant No.4
Id/-L.T.V
Sr.C.J.