JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE 5th defendant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal as the legal representatives of the 3rd defendant in O. S. No. 48/1974 on the file of Sub- court, Kavali. The Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the concurrent judgments of the learned Single Judge and of the trial Judge by which a 1/3rd share has been granted to the respondents-plaintiffs 1 to 3 in the above said suit.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows:- The 2nd plaintiff is one ramanamma and she is the widowed daughter-in-law of Anam Lakshmamma (D-3 ). She has filed the present suit along with her son and daughter who are impleaded as plaintiffs 1 and 3. She has claimed 1/3rd share in/the plaint schedule properties treating them as joint family properties. Lakshmamma (D- 3) was the daughter of one Kondarcddy. Lakshmamma s husband was Rami reddy. According to the plaintiffs, Rami Reddy died some time in 1940 while according to the defendants 1,2,5 and others, Rami Reddy died some time in 1950. Lakshmamma and Rami Reddy have one daughter Mangamma (D-5)and three sons Venka Reddy (husband of 2nd plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 1 and 3) who died in 1974 and Ramana Reddy (D-1) and Chenchurami Reddy (D-3 ). The 10th defendant is the husband of Mangamma (D-5) and defendants 4 and 9 are their daughters while defendants 6 to 8 are their sons. In the suit, the 2nd plaintiff claimed that her father-in-law late Rami Reddy was an illatom son-in- law of Konda Reddy bu t that contention has notbeen accepted by the trial Court and/by the learned single judge. Therefore, it isnot necessary to go into the said question. The plaintiff s claim has to be considered on the basis that the claim is for a share in the Joint family properties in respect of the joint family of late rami Reddy and his three sons Venka Reddy, the plaintiffs claiming the 1/3rd share of Venka Reddy.

( 3 ) IN this appeal, we are mainly concerned with 3 acres in item No. 6, item 7 and as to the question whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a 1/3rd share as contended by them or to a 1/4th share as contended by the other defendants.

( 4 ) SO far as the 3 acres in item No. 6 of the plaint A Schedule are concerned, it is the case of the plaintiffs in the plaint that the said item was purchased by sale of 8 acres of joint family property in Brahmanakraka village under Ex. A-1 dated 15-3-1968 for Rs. 25,500/ -. that the purchase of item No. 6 is under Ex. A-2 dated 15-5-1968 for Rs. 19,000/ -. The plaintiffs also stated in para 9 that after the death of Konda Reddy the plaintiff s father-in-law Rami Reddy became entitled to the entire properties of Konda Reddy, that some land at brahmanakraka was sold and with the sale proceeds, item No. 6 was purchased but that the sale deed for an extent of 3 acres was taken benami in the name of the 5th defendant, mother of defendants 1 and 2and late Venka Reddy. It is then stated that the 3rd defendant Lakshmamma had no right or interest in the said property, that she has no capacity to purchase the same and that the entire A schedule property is the joint family property of defendants 1 and 2 and the deceased Venka Reddy. In the written statements it was stated that the land at brahmanakraka was sold for Rs. 23,000/- and not for Rs. 25,000/- that item No. 6 was jointly purchased by defendants 1,2 and late Venka Reddy and the 3rd defendant and that the 3 acres out of the said item belong to the 3rd defendant. It is again stated in paragraph 9 of the written statement that the 3rd defendant was actually entitled to 3 acres in item No. 6 and that it is false to say that the 3rd defendant had no capacity to purchase the said property. It is stated that she contributed the entire consideration in relation to the said 3 acres.

( 5 ) THE trial court as well as the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the 3rd defendant did not have thecapacity to purchase the 3 acres fromher own funds and that the purchase was made under Ex. A-2 with

Click Here to Read the rest of this document