L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 165 of 1987 is the appellant. He filed the suit against his younger brother, the sole defendant, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The defendant died during the pendency of the appeal. His LRs. are brought on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the suit.

( 2 ) IN brief, the plea of the plaintiff was that, their father late Subba Reddy, was a resident of Kodavalur and died in the year 1932, when the plaintiff and defendant were aged about 9 and 6 years, respectively. He pleaded that their father owned a rice mill; share in another rice mill and other immovable properties, and after his death, their mother, Rangamma, along with himself and his brother, shifted to nellore and resided in the house of rangamma s grand-mother. It is his case that with the money and other resources left by his father, Rangamma, purchased items 2 and 3 of the suit schedule in the name of himself and his brother, and item no. 4, in her name. He alleged that item no. 1 of the suit schedule, a residential house, which belonged to the grand-mother of rangamma, was developed by changing the roof and constructing first floor, with the funds of the joint family, and though it accrued to Rangamma, by way of inheritance, it became part of the joint family property. As regards item No. 5, an extent of about 20 acres of land purchased in the name of the 1st respondent in the year 1965, he pleaded that it was acquired by utilizing the income of the joint family properties and that it is available for partition.

( 3 ) IN his written statement, the defendant pleaded that their father did not hold any property by the time he died, and that it is their mother, Rangamma, who arranged for the purchase of items 2 and 3 in their names. He contended that items 1 and 4 of the suit schedule are the exclusive properties of Rangamma and that she bequeathed the same, to his son, by name, panduranga Reddy (the 3rd respondent herein), under a Will dated 20-10-1984. He asserted that item 5 of the suit schedule is his exclusive property and that the appellant has nothing to do with the same. He furnished the particulars of the sale of plots from part of that land.

( 4 ) THE Trial Court passed the preliminary decree dated 16-11-1995 holding that only items 2 and 3 are available for partition; items 1 and 4 were the exclusive properties of late Rangamma and that item 5 is the exclusive property of the 1st respondent. Hence, this appeal by the plaintiff, insofar as the Trial Court denied the relief in respect of items 1, 4 and 5.

( 5 ) SRI M. Ravindranath Reddy, learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that though the defendant pleaded in the written statement that their father did not hold any properties or resources by the time he died, as DW-1, he admitted in his evidence that properties of considerable value were left by their father. He contends that item No. l of the suit schedule was developed by utilizing the joint family properties and that there is sufficient evidence to prove that it was treated as part of the joint family properties.

( 6 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel, item No. 4 of the suit schedule was purchased, along with those in items 2 and 3, and there exists hardly any difference as to the utilization of the funds, negotiation etc. , in relation to the purchase to that item, except that it was in the name of their mother, and in that view of the matter, it was very much part of the joint family property.

( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel further submits that DW-1 did not have any means to purchase item 5 of the suit schedule. He contends that the joint family held valuable properties, and it was with the income derived out of the same, that item No. 5 was purchased. He points out that the evidence of defendant in this regard was untrustworthy and inconsistent. He attacks the finding of the Trial Court on the validity of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document