DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16. 12. 1997 in A. S. No. 178 of 1991 on the file of 1st Additional District Judge at Chittoor (A. S. No. 98 of 1990 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Tirupati) confirming the judgment and decree dated 17. 9. 1990 in O. S. No. 124 of 1987 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirupati. Defendants in the suit are the appellants.

( 2 ) NECESSARY facts for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: bollini Munaswamy Naidu was the owner of plaint schedule property. He was having two daughters, namely, Lakshmamma and Kamala. He got married both the daughters to one and the same person by name Medasani Chengama Naidu. Plaintiff is the son of the first daughter Lakshmamma. Defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of the second daughter Kamala. On 30. 7. 1947 Bollini Munaswamy Naidu and his two sons including P. W. 2 executed a registered settlement deed Ex. A. 1 gifting the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and first defendant who were then minors. The other male issues to be born later were given similar rights in the same property. . The two sisters are appointed as guardians of their minor sons respectively till they attain their respective ages of majority. After the execution of the settlement deed Ex. A. 1, the second daughter Kamala gave birth to two other sons, namely, defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Lakshmamma s only son, namely, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking partition of the property covered by Ex. A. 1 into two equal half shares and for separate possession of his half share in the said property. Defendants contested the suit taking various pleas. The main plea is that as per the recitals in Ex. A. 1 settlement deed the plaintiff and the three defendants are each entitled to 1/4th share in plaint schedule property. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence before the trial court. The trial court on a consideration of the oral evidence as well as the recitals in Ex. A. 1 settlement deed accepted the case of the plaintiff that he was given half a share in plaint schedule property under ex. A. 1 settlement deed and that the remaining half share is to be equally shared by the defendants 1 to 3. The trial court accordingly decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the defendants preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court. After considering various contentions raised by both the parties, the lower Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree passed bys the trial court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, the defendants preferred the present appeal.

( 3 ) IN this appeal notice before admission was given to the respondent - plaintiff. He appeared before the court through his counsel and contested the appeal. The following substantial question of law falls for consideration in the present appeal. Whether as per the recitals in the settlement deed Ex. A. 1 the intention of the donors is to confer equal rights in the property covered by ex. A. 1 on the plaintiff and the defendants, and if so, whether the judgments and decrees of the two courts below holding that the plaintiff is entitled to half a share and not to 1/4th share are liable to be set aside?

( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge extracted relevant recitals in vernacular language in Telugu in Ex. A. 1 in the course of his judgment. It is recited in Ex. A. 1 that plaintiff, first defendant and male issues born to the two sisters thereafter and their mothers have to enjoy the gifted property till all the male issues attain their ages of majority and thereafter they have to divide "their respective shares" in Ex. A. 1 property "equally" among themselves and enjoy the same with absolute rights of sale, etc. At another portion of ex. A. 1 document, it is further recited that till all the sons attain their respective ages of majority, the two sisters have to enjoy the produce from the property in equal s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document