The mere filing of income-tax returns declaring the status as Hindu undivided family is not decisive of the real status of the individual.

I. VENKATANARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs are the appellants in both these appeals. AS No. 2664 of 1984 has been filed by the appellants against the decree and judgment in OS No. 32 of 1974 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada. AS No. 2577 of 1984 has been filed by the plaintiffs/appellants against the decree and judgment in OS No. 87 of 1974 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada. Since both the appeals raise a common question whether the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and if so, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for their shares, these two appeals are disposed off by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties to these appeals would be referred in accordance with their ranking in the suits. AS No. 2664 of 1984 :

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs are the appellants. Suit OS No. 32 of 1974 has beep filed on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs 2/9th joint share in plaint a schedule property. The averments in the plaint are briefly set-out here under: The plaintiffs are brothers and are undivided sons of the second defendant. First defendant is the father of the second defendant and husband of the third defendant. Plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 constitute a Joint Hindu Family of which the grandfather of the plaintiffs i. e. , the first defendant is the Manager. The first defendant is the adoptive son of late Mudda Subbayya Pantulu who was a Lawyer of Vijayawada Bar. As an advocate he did well for himself and acquired large wealth in the shape of houses and real estate at Vijayawada and several parts of Krishna District. He and his wife had no issues and therefore, adopted the first defendant, educated him, got him married and settled in life. The first defendant also joined the Bar and his father Mudda Subbayya Pantulu died in 1931, possessed of items 1 to 10 of a schedule property besides other vast real estate in the form of Agricultural lands and gardens. The first defendant joined the legal profession in 1932 and being the adopted son of a rich lawyer he spent the amounts lavishly. He disposed off most of the properties referred to in the plaint schedule before 1958 though there was no legal necessity or family benefits. In short the first defendant disposed off the plaint schedule properties from 1964 without any legal necessities or for the benefits of the family. It is the case of the plaintiff, that though the first defendant was an advocate he was not managing the family properties, even as an ordinary prudent man would do. The series of transactions and sale deeds would clearly prove that the defendant was squandering the family properties and therefore, those sale transactions are void. In view of the mismanagement by the first defendant depriving the family of enormous properties, a suit for partition of a schedule properties has been filed through their next friend for partition of plaint schedule properties into metes and bounds and delivery of 2/9th share of the plaint a schedule properties and for profits. Hence, the suit.

( 3 ) THE first defendant in the suit died before filing the written statement. The second defendant who is the son of the first defendant filed written statement fully supporting the case of the plaintiff and expressed no objection for passing a preliminary decree for partition. The third defendant who is the grandmother of the plaintiffs filed a detailed written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs and prayed for a decree for partition and separate possession and claimed 4/9th share in items 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and also sought for a declaration that mortgage items 2 and 3 dated 16-10-1969 and mortgage of item 3 dated 15-7-1971 in favour of 10th and 22nd defendant as invalid. The alienees who are arrayed as defendants resisted the suits and contends that the sales are true and valid and binding on the plaintiffs. It is the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document