C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) SINCE both the appeals are interconnected, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) L. P. A. NO. 11 of 1998 arises out of C. C. C. A. NO. 131 of 1994, which arose out of o. S. NO. 641 of 1988 on the file of the Court of iv Additional Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad. L. P. A. No. 65 of 1998 arises out of Tr. C. C. C. A. No. 26 of 1995, which arose out of O. S. No. 1369 of 1989 on the file of the court of IV Additional Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad, which was originally instituted as O. S. No. 4528 of 1987 on the file of the Court of VII Assistant Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad. Defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. NO. 641 of 1988 are the appellants and both the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 in o. S. No. 641 of 1988 are respondents 1 to 4 respectively in L. P. A. No. 11 of 1998. Second appellant and respondents 1 and 2 in l. P. A. No. 11 of 1988 are the plaintiffs and defendants respectively in O. S. No. 1369 of 1989. Both the suits, O. S. Nos. 641 of 1988 and 1369 of 1989, were tried and disposed of together by a common judgment by the trial court and similarly C. C. C. A. No. 131 of 1994 and Tr. C. C. C. A. No. 26 of 1995 were also disposed of by a common judgment by a learned Single Judge of this Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties would hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in O. S. No. 341 of 1988.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFFS filed O. S. No. 641 of 1988 for partition of the house property situated within the boundaries described in the schedule appended to the plaint, alleging that they and defendants are brothers and are the sons of M. V. Chalapathi Rao, a native of Kothareddipalem, Tenali Taluk, Guntur district, who was a village Karnam and also a document writer. Chalapathi Rao, after selling away the ancestral houses at kothareddipalem and Chebrolu, migrated to Hyderabad and purchased Plot Nos. 84 and 85 at Old Malakpet in the name of the first defendant, benami for the benefit of the joint family consisting of himself and his sons, and constructed a house therein with the sale proceeds of the ancestral houses and the contributions made by the defendants. Even during the lifetime of the parents of the parties, the first defendant relinquished his share in the plaint schedule property in favour of first plaintiff and fourth defendant under a registered release deed dated 30-08-1966. But second defendant is giving out that he obtained a decree in O. S. No. 4144 of 1986 against the first defendant for declaration of his title to the plaint schedule property. Since none of the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 are parties to the said suit, the decree in O. S. No. 4144 of 1988 is not binding on them.

( 4 ) FIRST defendant filed a memo adopting the written statement of the second defendant. In his written statement second defendant admitted the relationship between the parties, and took a plea that he, out of his own earnings as a Government servant, purchased Plot No. 84 of Old malakpet in the year 1957 under a registered sale deed benami in the name of the first defendant, and had also purchased the adjoining plot No. 85 in the same year and took possession of the same after paying the entire sale consideration to the vendor, but did not obtain a sale deed in respect of Plot no. 85, and constructed a house in Plot no. 84 with his own earnings, and has been in possession and enjoyment of the house and plot Nos. 84 and 85 and thus the plaint schedule property is his separate self- acquired property, and is not the joint family property of himself and his brothers which never had any income yielding properties. Their ancestral houses were sold away for discharging the debts contracted by their father Chalapathi Rao. He and his brothers, who are all earning members, have acquired properties, including houses of their own, at hyderabad. The relinquishment deed in favour of first plaintiff and fourth defendant is a nominal document executed by the first defendant to ena

Click Here to Read the rest of this document