Back
2002 Supreme(AP) 145
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : L.NARSIMHA REDDY
N.Krishna Reddy - Appellant
Versus
N.Sharadaba - Respondent
Decided On : 02-05-02
Headnote:
Urban Land Act - Joint family - Share - Sake of convenience – Challenge - Arrayed in the suit - Suit schedule properties as well as about of agricultural land in Richer District fell to share - He was managing and administering properties on behalf of joint family comprising of himself and his children - He sold agricultural lands during his lifetime and only suit schedule properties remained by time he died - After the death of plaintiffs have been demanding defendant for effecting partition and separate possession of their shares in suit schedule properties - Without acceding to request of plaintiffs defendant had executed a sale deed in favor of defendants - Hence plaintiffs filed suit for partition – Held, Next decision in case relates to power of a joint family to sell joint family property for legal necessity and benefit of family - As observed earlier plaintiffs if we’re serious about their contentions that alienations effected by were not for benefit of family ought to have roped in items of properties so transferred by in schedule to their plaint - They have not chosen to do so plaintiffs never sought to annul any sale effected by as of Joint family on ground that sale was not for the benefit of family. Reliance upon the said decision by counsel in court view is misplaced - Allowed dismissed
( 1 ) IN this appeal, defendants 2 to 7 in o. S. No. 471 of 1983 on the file of the 1st additional Judge, City Civil Courts, hyderabad, challenge the judgment and decree passed therein. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.
( 2 ) THE plaintiffs (respondents 1 to 3 herein) filed the suit for partition. The plaintiffs are the daughters and defendant no. 1 is the son of late F. Surender Rao, f. Shamsunder Rao, F. Surender Rao and f. Seetaram Rao were the three sons of late raja Bahadur F. Giri Rao. Late Sri Giri Rao was a former Judge of the High Court of hyderabad and he acquired several items of properties in the district of Raichur and in the city of Hyderabad. He died on 31-5-1936. His eldest son Shamsunder Rao predeceased him and was survived by his two sons by name Manohar Rao and Gopal rao. Through a registered partition deed dated 21st Shehrevar 1356 Fasli, which comes to near about 1946, partition was effected among Surender Rao, Seetarama rao and sons of Shyam Sunder Rao.
( 3 ) IN the above said partition, the suit schedule properties as well as about 240 acres of agricultural land in Raichur District fell to the share of Surender Rao. He was managing and administering the properties on behalf of the joint family comprising of himself and his children. He sold agricultural lands during his lifetime and only the suit schedule properties remained by the time he died on 25-8-1964. After the death of Surender Rao, the plaintiffs have been demanding the 1st defendant for effecting partition and separate possession of their shares in the suit schedule properties. Without acceding to the request of the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant had executed a sale deed dated 27-4-1979 in favour of defendants 2 to 7. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition.
( 4 ) THE 1st defendant filed written statement admitting the relationship of parties and the factum of partition in the year 1946 between his father and two other branches in the family. It was pleaded by the 1st defendant that an oral partition of the properties that fell to the share of Surender rao was effected whereunder the suit schedule properties as well as some items of agricultural land in Raichur District fell to the share of 1st defendant and the remaining extent of agricultural land fell to the share of his father Surender Rao. It was his next contention that Surender Rao, during his lifetime, executed a Relinquishment Deed dated 14 Aban 1358 Fasli (which correspondents to 1948) wherein the factum of oral partition of the properties between the 1st defendant and Surender Rao were referred and Surender Rao relinquished all his claims, rights and interest, if any, in respect of the properties that fell to the share of the 1st defendant in the whole partition. Under these circumstances, the 1st defendant became the absolute owner and possessor of the properties that fell to his share in the oral partition. Inasmuch as the suit schedule properties fell to the share of the 1st defendant in the partition, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
( 5 ) DEFENDANTS 2 to 8 filed a separate written statement reiterating the stand taken by the 1st defendant. They have also pleaded certain other facts, which almost supplement the stand taken by the 1st defendant.
( 6 ) ON the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the relinquishment deed dated 19th Aban 1358 F is true and valid? (2) Whether the suit schedule property is the ancestral or self acquired property of late Surender Rao? (3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the partition and separate possession of their shares in the suit property? If so to what share? (4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any past mesne profits? If so at what rate? (5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any future profits? If so at what rate?the 1st plaintiff examined herself as P. W. I
