ISSUES

FINDING

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition of the suit scheduled property?

The court determined that the partition of property among the co-sharers of Mukera Muthaiah occurred during his and Mukkera Hanumanthaiah’s lifetime, with each branch having distinct possession since 1975-76 and separately paying land revenue. Consequently, there being no question of a joint family property, the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim 1/3rd share of the property. Answered against the plaintiffs.

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property?

Since the co-sharers of Mukerra Muthaiah family are enjoying the suit schedule property separately and the parties to the suit are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective properties. Hence, the plaintiffs cannot claim the relief of permanent injunction.

3. Whether after the death of late Mukkera Muthaiah partitioned joint family properties had taken place and the properties fell to the share of each branch?

Partition occurred during the lifetime of Mukkera Muthaiah and Mukkera Hanumanthaiah, not after their death as pleaded by defendant no. 1.

4. Whether Sy. No.250 to an extent of Ac.4.20 gts was sold to one S.Narayana and K.Laxmaiah by plaintiffs 1 to 5 and they inturn sold the same to a Tribal by name Bhukya Arja?

Admissions of PWs-1 and 2 indirectly support the conclusion that Mukkera Hanumanthaiah did sell the land to Laxmaiah and Narayana.

5. Whether Ac.2-30 gts, Sy.No.178/A in seethampeta which is part of Item No.1 of suit schedule property fell to the share of defendant No.1 in the said partition?

Evidence establish that this land was allocated to defendant no. 1 in the partition.

6. Whether late Muthaiah grand-father of plaintiffs in his life time gave Item Nos. 1, Ac. 1-10gts of land to respondent No. 2 towards her “Pasupu Kumkuma”?

Though there was no registered settlement deed, one acre in Sy.No.163 was allotted to defendant No.2 in the partition in recognition of the services she rendered to Mukkera Muthaiah in his old age. Answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.

7. Whether this Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit?

Since both parties were non-tribals and no tribal interest was involved, Section 9 CPC vested it with jurisdiction.

8. Whether the suit is undervalued?

The valuation and fee paid were found to be proper.

9. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

Suit barred by limitation as plaintiff no. 1, manager of the family, was 42 years old as on the