1
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::
ANANTHAPURAMU
PRESENT:- Sri V. Venkateswara Rao, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (FAC) Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu .
Thursday, this the 22nd day of July, 2021.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.457/2018
Between :
1.B. Chandrasekhar Reddy
2.B. Ramachandra Reddy... Plaintiffs
And
1. B. Nagaraja Reddy
2. D. Masthan Vali.… Defendants
This suit coming on 14.7.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Ramalingaiah, Advocate for the plaintiffs, and the defendants remained ex-parte and upon hearing both sides and upon perusal of the available material on record this court delivered the following :-
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants for partition of plaint schedule property into three equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiffs each and 1st defendant with metes and bounds and for costs of the suit.
2. The plaint averments are, in brief, as follows:-
The plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and 1st defendant and they are enjoying the same jointly.
Originally the plaint schedule property along with some other lands belongs to one B. Yella Reddy and during his lifetime he enjoyed the property and he died leaving behind him his 4 sons viz., B. Naganna, B.
2
Pedda Ramanna, B. Sanjaappa and B. Chinna Ramanna. After the demise of B. Yella Reddy his 4 sons enjoyed the properties jointly for some time and later they have divided their joint family properties orally and in the said oral partition an extent of Ac.1-98 cents in
S.No.270 allotted to the share of B. Naganna and said Naganna enjoyed the same during his lifetime and after his death his two sons viz., Pedda Ramaiah and Guddi Ramaiah enjoyed the land jointly for some time and later they have divided the above property equally by way of oral partition and an extent of Ac.0-99 cents was allotted to each of them. The said Pedda Ramaiah died leaving behind him his only son B. Narapa Reddy and hence he became entitled to Ac.0-99 cents and said Pedda Narapa Reddy died leaving behind him his two sons viz., B. Rami Reddy and Nagi Reddy and both of them enjoyed the land jointly each having half joint share for some time. Later, said B.
Rami Reddy and Nagireddy divided the above property orally and in the oral partition an extent of Ac.0-49 cents was allotted to the share of B. Rami Reddy and another extent of Ac.0-49 cents allotted to the share of Nagireddy and since then both of them enjoyed their respective shares with specific boundaries. After the demise of B. Rami
Reddy his 3 sons became entitled to the land bearing S.No.270 measuring Ac.0-49 cents and they are enjoying the same jointly each having 1/3rd joint share in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs are having 1/3rd share each and 1st defendant is having 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties. While that is so, some disputes arose between the plaintiffs and 1st defendant in enjoying the plaint schedule properties as 1st defendant is acting adverse to the interest of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs reliably came to know that 1st defendant is 3 making efforts to create some nominal documents in favour of third parties like 2nd defendant with regard to schedule property for which he is not entitled. If the 1st defendant create any nominal documents in favour of 2nd defendant they are not biding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs made number of demands on the 1st defendant to come forward for amicable partition and separate possession of their legitimate 2/3rd share, though the 1 st defendant conceded their share, he went on postponing the partition on one pretext or the other.
Hence the suit.
3. The defendants remained ex-parte.
4. To prove their case, the plaintiffs examined Pws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
6. Now the point for consideration is whether the suit
schedule property is liable for partition and the plaintiffs are
entitled for 1/3rd share each in the plaint schedule property?
POINT:-
7.Perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs. There is no dispute that plaintiffs and 1st defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment of the survey number in suit schedule property. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property and to allot 1/3rd share each to the plaintiffs with metes and 4 bounds. The defendants remained ex-parte and did not choose to contest the matter. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaint schedule property is ancestral property and the plaintiffs and 1st defendant are jointly enjoying the same and originally the schedule property belonged to B. Yella Reddy and after his demise his 4 sons viz., B.
Naganna, B. Pedda Ramanna, B. Sanjappa and B. Chinna Ramanna enjoyed the properties jointly and they have divided their property orally. Further case is that in the said oral partition Ac.1-98 cents in
S.No.270 allotted to the sahre of B. Naganna and after his death his two sons Pedda Ramaiah and Guddi Ramaiah enjoyed his share jointly and later they have divided the property orally and in the said oral partition and Ac.0-99 cents allotted to each of them. Further case is that after the death of Pedda Ramaiah his only son B. Narapa Reddy entitled to Ac.0-99 cents and after the death of B. Narapa Reddy his 2 sons viz., B. Rami Reddy and B. Nagi Reddy jointly enjoyed the property having each ½ joint share for some time and later partitioned orally and got an extent of 0-49 cents each. Further case is that said
Rami Reddy died leaving behind him the plaintiffs and 1st defendant as his legal heirs and all of them are enjoying the same jointly each having 1/3rd share. Further, due to misunderstandings the 1st defendant trying to create nominal documents in favour of 2nd defendant and hence, the plaintiffs demanded for partition of the said property but the 1st defendant is postponing the same on one pretext or the other and accordingly the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition.
8.To prove their case, the 1st plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and filed his examination-in-chief in the form of chief-affidavit and reiterated the contents of the plaint. In support of oral evidence of 5
PW.1, the plaintiffs also relied on Exs.A.1 and A.2 documents. Ex.A.1 is the attested copy of resettlement register of Govindapalli. Ex.A2 is the genealogy. Ex.A1 would clearly goes to show that the plaint schedule property partitioned orally earlier under oral partition deed and in that partition the land in schedule survey number 270 to an extent of Ac.0- 49 cents i.e., each having 1/3rd share was kept joint between the plaintiffs and 1st defendant. The evidence of PW.1 would further goes to show that the plaintiffs and defendants are jointly enjoying the land in suit survey number and due to misunderstandings between them, the 1st defendant is trying to create nominal documents in favour of 2nd defendant and so, the plaintiffs demanded for partition of the said land in survey number and to allot 1/3rd share each to them, the 1st defendant conceded their share, but declined to do so and accordingly, they filed the suit. In support of their case, the plaintiffs also got examined one Moola Muniswamy Reddy as PW.2. PW.2 filed his examination-in-chief in the form of chief-affidavit and stated that the plaintiffs and 1st defendant are put together entitled to 1/3rd share each in the plaint schedule property and he came to know just prior to filing of the suit about some disputes arose between the plaintiffs and 1st defendant and the 1st defendant acting adverse to the interest of the plaintiffs. Further deposed that the plaintiffs made demands on 1st defendant to come forward for amicable division with regard to suit property and several panchayaths also held by the elders in this connection and 1st defendant was advised to come for amicable settlement but in vain. As already noticed, the defendants remained ex-parte and they did not resist the suit. Thus, the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 and A2 remained unchallenged. There is no 6 material before the Court to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1.
Accordingly, this Court is inclined to believe the testimony of PW.1,
PW.2 and Exs.A1 and A2. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiffs.
10.In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed. There shall be partition of the plaint schedule property into 3 equal shares and the plaintiffs are entitled for one such share each and the 1st defendant is entitled for one share. The 1st defendant is directed to co-operate the partition of the schedule property and allot shares to the plaintiffs as above within two months from the date of judgment, failing which, the plaintiffs are at liberty to file a separate application. There is no order as to costs.
Typed to my direct dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court on this the 22 nd day of July, 2021.
Addl. Senior Civil Judge,
(FAC) Prl.Senior Civil Judge,
Ananthapuramu
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for
Plaintiffs Defendants
PW.1 : B. Ramachandra Reddy. - Ex-parte - PW.2 : M. Muniswamy Reddy
Exhibits marked for plaintiffs
Ex.A1: Attested copy of resettlement register of Govindapalli Ex.A2: Genealogy
Exhibits marked for defendants
- NIL -
A.S.C.J
(FAC) PSCJ