Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.V.S.RAO
V.Srisailam - Appellant
Versus
V.Krishna Murthy - Respondent
Decided On : 11-20-02
Civil Procedure Code 1908 - Section 10 - Evidence Act 1872 - Section 101, 114, 134 and 32 (2) - Andhra Pradesh Buildings Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960 – Partnership Firm - Dissolution of accounts – Parties are related Two suits were filed for partition of plaint-A schedule immovable properties and plaint-B schedule business concerns and plaint-C schedule movable properties - Two other suits were filed by one of defendants for dissolution and accounts of two firms - It is convenient to refer to parties as they are arrayed in suit filed by Veesamsetti Krishna murthy - Following genealogy table would show relationship of parties to suit – Held, Court must scrutinise pleadings to find out that such a plea has been made out and full particulars thereof have been given - There are no particulars given as to undue influence allegedly exercised by sixth defendant. Be that as it may no effort is made either by plaintiff or by fifth defendant to prove that any undue influence was exercised - In fact at stage of appeal defendants 1 to 4 and 8 who challenged Will at trial stage have given up case and they also did not allege that sixth defendant was in a position to dominate Buggaiah - Fourth defendant as D. W. 3, in one chorus state that Buggaiah was a person of strong will till his death no one in family was dare enough to question his decisions or actions - Dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS judgment shall dispose of all the seven city Civil Court Appeals. The parties are related. Two suits were filed for partition of plaint-A schedule immovable properties and plaint-B schedule business concerns and plaint-C schedule movable properties. Two other suits were filed by one of the defendants for dissolution and accounts of two firms. It is convenient to refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the suit filed by Veesamsetti Krishna murthy. The following genealogy table would show the relationship of the parties to the suit. Veesamsetti Srisailam (died)
( 2 ) VEESAMSETTI Buggaiah was a businessman mainly dealing in hardware, cement and paints. All his sons as shown in the genealogy chart were also engaged in similar business. Veesamsetti Buggaiah died on 4. 12. 1978. Sixth son V. Krishna Murthy filed O. S. No. 1164 of 1979 before the Court of III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, secunderabad, against his brothers, mother and sister seeking partition of plaint-A, B and C-schedule properties into 72 parts, and to allot 10 such parts to him. The same was transferred to the Court of Additional Chief judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and re-numbered as O. S. No. 29 of 1983. His brothers, Yadagiri, Narsimhulu, Lakshmi narsimhulu, Ayodhya Ramulu, Koteswar rao and Srisailam are arrayed as defendants 1 to 6, his mother as seventh defendant and his sister as eighth defendant. The fifth defendant in O. S. No. 29 of 1983 veesamsetti Koteswara Rao filed separate suit being O. S. No. 262 of 1980 on the file of the Court of III Additional Judge, City civil Court, Secunderabad praying for partition of same properties and for allotment of 10/72th share in his favour. The said suit was also transferred to the Court of additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, secunderabad and was renumbered as o. S. No. 37 of 1983. The sixth defendant in o. S. No. 29 of 1983 Veesamsetti Srisailam filed two suits being O. S. Nos. 1101 and 1100 of 1979 on the file of the Court of iii Additional Judge, City Civil Court, secunderabad. These were transferred to the Court of Additional Chief Judge, City civil Court, Secunderabad and were renumbered as O. S. Nos. 73 and 468 of 1983. The suit O. S. No. 73 of 1983 was filed for accounts and winding up of the partnership firm M/s. Veesamsetti Buggaiah. In the said suit, defendants 1 to 4 in O. S. No. 29 of 1983 were arrayed as defendants. The suit, O. S. No. 468 of 1983 was filed for accounts and winding up of the firm known as M/s. Anantha Lakshmi Hardware stores. Defendants 3 and 4 and plaintiff in o. S. No. 29 of 1983 are the defendants in o. S. No. 468 of 1983. All the four suits were disposed of by common judgment dated 31. 12. 1992 by the Court of Additional Chief judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.
( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge decreed o. S. Nos. 29 and 37 of 1983 for partition and separate possession and further directed that the plaintiffs are entitled for rendition of accounts and profits derived from B-schedule business concerns and for mesne profits. The suits filed by the sixth defendant being o. S. Nos. 73 and 468 of 1983 were dismissed in view of the findings recorded on various issues in the other two suits.
( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 29 of 1983 the sixth defendant filed C. C. C. A. No. 110 of 1992, defendants 1, 2, 4 and 8 filed C. C. C. A. No. 5 of 1994 and third defendant filed cc. C. A. No. 148 of 1994. The sixth defendant filed C. C. C. A. No. 110 of 1993 against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 37 of 1983 and C. C. C. A. No. 162 of 1995 was filed by defendants 1, 4 and 8 against o. S. No. 37 of 1983. The other C. C. C. A. No. 113 of 1993 is against O. S. No. 73 of 1983 and C. C. C. A. No. 112 of 1993 is against o. S. No. 468 of 1983. These two appeals are filed by Srisailam, sixth defendant, who filed suit for winding up.
( 5 ) ALL the parties before this Court requested the Court to refer O. S. No. 29 of 1983 as
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.