Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
18-7-2016
Vs.
1. Podili Radhakrishnaiah
2. Podili Amarnadh
3. Momidi Sreenivasulu
4. Thatiparthi Gopala Krishnaiah
5. Momidi Masthanamma
6. Cherukupalli Mallikarjuna ... Defendants
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for partition
praying the court to direct the defendants 1 and 2 to divide the plaint
schedule two items of properties into 3 equal shares and to allot 1/3rd
share to the plaintiff within the time fixed by the court and for mesne profits
follows:
undivided joint family for which, the 1 st defendant has been acting as
Kartha with the incomes derived from the 1 st item of the plaint schedule
property. The 1st defendant purchased the 2nd item of property in his name
of joint family and has been managing after the death of 1 st defendant's
father. Thus, both the items of plaint schedule property belongs to joint
family, for which, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are equally entitled.
Except the incomes derived from the plaint schedule properties, there is no
(ii) It is further stated that in the year 1990 her marriage was
performed and at the time of marriage, D-1 orally promissed that he will
give the shares in the entire joint family properties within one or two years
and as such, no amounts or not articles were presented to her and the
(iii) It is further stated that as D-1 and D-2 continuously postponing the
settlement of the share of plaintiff, the plaintiff along with her husband in
the month of July, 2009 demanded the defendants 1 and 2 to settle her
1/3rd share. For which, the defendants 1 and 2 told that the 1 st item of
separately and the 2nd item of property was already settled in favour of 2 nd
defendant and that the plaintiff has no share at all . Then, the plaintiff and
her husband came to know that as long back as in the year 1998 itself, 1 st
defendant.
3 O.S.No. 127/2010 dt. 18-7-2016
(iv) It is further stated that all the defendants colluded with each
other and appropriated the entire joint family properties with a view to
evade the legitimate share of the plaintiff. The defendants 3 to 6 are not the
bonafide purchasers who have not made any formal enquiries before their
purchase of 1st item of plaint schedule property. Hence, all the alienations
made by 1st defendant more than his share is not binding on the plaintiff
and hence, she need not sought for the relief of their cancellation. D-1 is
not entitled to make those alienations. D-1 and D-2 have pretended that
they are enjoying the plaint schedule properties and as such, postponing
the partition. The plaintiff came to know the mis-deeds of the defendants in
(v) It is further stated that by birth itself, the plaintiff has very poor ,
eye sight for left eye and that an operation was conducted by Aravind
Nethralayam at Madurai for her left eye and that the child welfare and
District Head quarters hospital, Nellore mentioning that there is 100% blind
colluded with other defendants did all the above misdeeds against the
interest of plaintiff. AS such, D-3 to D-5 and mother of D-6 are not bonafide
purchasers and they purchased item No.1 of plaint schedule property with
the collusion of D-1. As the mother of D-6 died recently and hence D-6 was
statement denying most of the plaint averments and contended inter alia
that the D-1 is professionally having “Sannayee Malem” and used to earn
4 O.S.No. 127/2010 dt. 18-7-2016
income out of his profession in and attending the marriage functions and
other functions and also having art of making statues of religious idols and
used to have income out of it. Thus, out of his self-earnings, he purchased
So, the 1st defendant and his wife which are their self-acquired properties
Ac.1-84 cents which is originally owned and possessed by his father and
mother.
(ii) It is further stated that the plaintiff marriage was performed with
defendant and sent out the plaintiff from the house to get more dowry and
property. So that the 1st defendant and his wife had given the house
way of Settlement deed dated 13-6-1996. Now, the husband of the plaintiff
has not satisfied with those properties and harassing the plaintiff and got
5 O.S.No. 127/2010 dt. 18-7-2016
filed the suit with a malafide intention to have wrongful gain as if she got a
share in the property and this suit is engineered by her husband and it is
(iii) It is further stated that D-3 to D-6 have not purchased the
parties in the suit. The husband of the plaintiff is trying to extract more
money from 1st defendant and got filed this suit with an ulterior motive and
and the court fee paid by the plaintiff is incorrect, as such, the plaintiff has
plaint schedule property and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
issues:
as Pw.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were got marked on behalf of the plaintiff. The
are marked on behalf of the defendant. After giving ample time and
opportunity, the defendant side evidence is closed and the defendant is not
Mandal for item No.1 of plaint schedule property. Ex.A-2 is the True copy
9. ISSUE NO.1 :
averments.
10. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendants 1
and 2 are the Hindu joint family members and co-parceners . D-1
purchased item No.2 of the property on the income of Item No.1. Though,
the plaintiff demanded for partition, they did not divide it. Hence, the plaintiff
was constrained to file the suit for partition of her 1/3rd share.
12. As per the principal laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the above referred Judgment, since the defendants did not turn up
into the witness box to state their own case on oath and did not offer
arise that the pleas taken by them in the written statement are incorrect.
Accordingly, the case of plaintiff by relying upon the evidence of Pw.1 and
Exs.A-1 to A-5 can be relied upon. Accordingly, the plaintiff proved and
established that she is entitled for partition of plaint schedule property and
allotment of 1/3rd share to her as per law. The defendants failed to prove
contra to it.
liable to be divided into three equal shares by metes and bounds and for
allotment of one such share to the plaintiff and one such share each to
schedule property into three equal shares and allot one such share to the
plaintiff within two months from the date of decree and Judgment.
shares by metes and bounds and to allot one such share to the plaintiff
within two months from the date of decree and Judgment. Failing which,
appropriate time for granting of mesne profits over the plaint schedule
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Plaintiff:-
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Plaintiff:-