Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : D.JAGANNADHA RAJU, K.A.SWAMI
C.Bommul Reddy - Appellant
Versus
C.R.Bommul Reddy - Respondent
A.S. No. 695/82
Decided On : 08-04-89
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. J.V. Suryanarayana Rao, Mr. S.N. Sundara Rajan,Mr. K. N. Reddy
Held : In a case where an ancient partition is pleaded there can be no precise evidence regarding the actual partition and the details of that partition. The principles applicable to ancient transactions would apply for proof of an ancient partition and normally the gaps in evidence can be filled by inferences and presumptions drawn properly from the evidence produced before the Court. The normal course of human conduct, should also be taken into account in dealing with such questions.
It is the duty of the plaintiffs to establish that the family continued to live jointly right upto the date of the suit. They cannot claim that it is for the contesting defendants to establish the factum of partition, when they themselves admit that for more than 50 years some properties were being separately and exclusively enjoyed by the first branch of the family.
In this case, there was a prior partition and the family did not continue to live as a joint family. There is overwhelming, documentary evidence and conduct of the parties to establish that the father of 0.1 and 0.2 got divided in 1915 itself. From the numerous registered documents that have been produced in evidence and from the conduct of the parties stretching over 60 years prior to the suit the factum of a prior partition can be inferred and the normal presumption that a Hindu family continues to be joint is not available in this case. The fact that separate residence and separate possession and enjoyment of the properties is admitted by the partition is a strong factor in support of the existence of a prior partition.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by defendants 1,4 and 6 to 8 in O. S. No. 38/76 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madanapalle against the judgment and decree dt. 7-1-82. The court decreed the suit for partition filed by plaintiffs 1 to 3 and passed a preliminary decree to the effect that the plaintiffs are each entitled to a 3/27th share. The 1st defendant is entitled to 4/27th share, and defendants 3,5 and 12 together are entitled to 9/27th share. Defendants 6 to 9 are together entitled to a 4/27th share and the 4th defendant is entitled to a 1/27th share in all the plaint schedule properties.
( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by this judgment the present appeal is filed by defendants 1, 4 and 6 to 8 who represent the first branch. They are progeny and wife of Bommul Reddy, the son through the first wife of peddapapireddygari bommul Reddy (hereinafter called propositus ). The plaintiffs represent the second branch i. e. the branch of Bommul Reddy @ Peddabba (hereinafter called peddabba ). He is the first son through the second wife of propositus. The three plaintiffs are the three sons of Peddabba. The third branch is the branch of Rami Red Jy the second son of the propositus through the second wife. His wife D-5, son D-3, sister D-12 and reddappareddy s wife Krishnamma D-13 are sailing with the plaintiffs in the suit. For greater details and clarity the geueological tree filed along with the plaint and extracted in the judgment may be referred to.
( 3 ) THE brief version of the plaint runs thus: The suit properties described in the schedule originally belonged to Peddapapireddgari Bommul reddy who died about 100 years ago leaving behind him his three sons, bommul Reddy the son through the 1st wife, Bommul Reddy @ Paddabba and Ramireddy sons through the 2nd wife. After his death, his three sons inherited the property and enjoyed the property jointly. The family continued to be joint after the death of Peddapapireddygari Bommul Reddy (propositus ). Bommul Reddy, father of D-1 and D-2 became the manager of the joint family. After his death in 1950 his son Bommul Reddy D-l became the manager of the joint family. During the time when D-1 s father and D-l were Managers of the joint family several properties were purchased with the funds of the joint family. They are part of the suit property. Though the sale deeds were executed in the name of Bommul Reddy and D-l the property purchased was treated by all the brothers as joint family property. Oa several occasions the co-parceners have admitted the fact that all the properties including the properties purchased by the father of D-l are joint family properties.
( 4 ) BOMMUL Reddy died in the year 1949 leaving behind his two sons c. Bommul Reddy and Mohanraja Reddy, D-l and D-2. Ramireddy died leaving behind his son Reddeppareddy, D-3. Bommulreddy @ Peddabba died in the year 1972 leaving behind his three sons the plaintiffs.
( 5 ) THE family continued to live jointly and enjoyed the suit properties jointly. As the properties were situated in two villages viz. . Thimmanayanapalle (hereinafter called t. Palle and in Cherukuvaripalle, for the purpose of convenience the branch of D-l was cultivating the properties in t. Palle while the branch of plaintiffs and D-3 were cultivating the lands at cherukuvaripalle. They were also residing separately in the respective villages to look after the cultivation. Though the lands were cultivated separately there was no division of the joint family. Recently with a view to deprive the plaintiffs of their legitimate share D-l and D-2 submitted declaration forms under the Land Reforms Act, claiming that the lands id t. Palle belong to them exclusively. D-3 has been colluding with D-1 and d-2, Coming to know about their attempt the 1st plaintiff filed an objection petition before the Land Reforms Tribunal, D-l abused his position as manager of the joint family and obtained signatures of the plaintiff No. 1 on blank papers and unfilled forms
gpt-4
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
