C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) SINCE these two appeals arise out of the same suit, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) APPELLANT in A. S. No. 1920 of 1987 filed the suit against his brother and mother seeking partition of the properties specified in the schedules a b , c and d appended to the plaint. Subsequently, appellants in A. S. No. 1413 of 1987 filed a petition to implead themselves as Defendants 3 and 4 in the said suit on the ground that some of the properties covered by the plaint b schedule, in fact, belong to them and not to the parties to the suit. That petition was allowed and the appellants in a. S. No. 1413 of 1987 were brought on record as Defendants 3 and 4 in the said suit.

( 3 ) FOR the sake of convenience, I would hereinafter refer to the parties are they are arrayed in the Trial Court.

( 4 ) THE case, in brief, of the plaintiff is that he is the adopted son of the second defendant and her late husband malgireddi Ramaiah and that after his adoption first defendant was born to his adopted parents and that after he and his father, who were in management of the joint family property, have acquired the properties specified in plaint b schedule from out of the income derived from the joint family properties i. e. plaint a schedule properties and thus properties specified in the plaint a and b schedules along with the movable properties specified in the plaint c schedule are the joint family properties. He contracted debts specified in the plaint d schedule for the joint family necessities and since he wanted to get divided from the first defendant, he requested the first defendant for partition and since first defendant is not co-operating with hirn for partition of the joint family properties, he is obliged to file the suit.

( 5 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 filed a common written statement admitting the relationship between them and the plaintiff and contending that there, in fact, was a partition between the first defendant and the plaintiff during which the properties specified in the Annexure-I to the written statement along with some other properties were allotted to the share of plaintiff, and the properties specified in Annexure-II of the written statement were allotted to his share. Since the debts mentioned in the plaint d schedule are the personal debts of the plaintiff they have no liability to discharge those debts. In fact, plaintiff admitted the partition between him and first defendant in O. S. No. 73 of 1977 filed by him. Since no share was allotted to the second defendant in the earlier partition, she also is entitled to a share in the properties covered by plaint a and b schedules. Since properties mentioned in the plaint c schedule are not in existence, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.

( 6 ) THE case of third defendant is that lands in S. Nos. 578, 584 and 585 of Damera bheemanapally Village exclusively belong to him and that neither the plaintiff nor defendants 1 and 2 have any right in the said lands and so the suit in respect of those lands is not maintainable.

( 7 ) THE case of fourth defendant is that he is in possession of land in S. Nos. 641, 642 and 646 of Damera Bheemanapally village after having purchased them from the plaintiff and others under a simple sale deed and got his name mutated in the revenue records and so the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are not entitled to seek partition of those lands.

( 8 ) BASING on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed six issues for trial. In support of his case, plaintiff examined himself as P. W. I and six other witnesses as P. Ws. 2 to 7 and marked Exs. A. 1 to a. 17. Exs. X. 1 to X. 6 were marked through his witnesses. On behalf of Defendants 1 and 2, first defendant examined himself as d. W. 1 and another witness as D. W. 2 and marked Exs. B. 1 to B. 4, B. 11 and B. 12 on their behalf. Third defendant examined himself as D. W. 3 and marked Exs. B. 5 to b. 10 on his behalf. Fourth defendant e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document