Back
1982 Supreme(AP) 65
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.RAMACHANDRA RAJU
Polireddi Ramasubbareddi - Appellant
Versus
Polireddi Naga Krishna Reddy - Respondent
C. R. P. Nos. 5350 & 5351/80
Decided On : 03-16-82
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. P. Venkatrama Reddy, Mr. K. Parvathisam
Headnote:CIVIL PROCIDURE CODE Order 6, Rule 17 - Suit for Petition - Preliminary decree passed by the Court on the basis of a Compromise-Plaintiff being a minor the defendant a tenant in common continued to be in possession of the joint properties and making some acquisitions with the income arising out of those properties - Minor plaintiff on attaining majority can file a petition for amendment of the plaint schedule for including such acquisitions - He is entitled to claim a share in the acquisitions without filing a separate suit for partition
HELD: Reading the terms of the compromise it is clear that the plaintiff was not in a position to have asked for separating his share of the family properties till after he attained majority His right to apply for a final decree did not accrue till after he attained majority If the first defendant acquired any properties during the period between the date of compromise and the date of final decree from out of the income arising out of the joint properties the plaintiff is entitled to rely on this subsequent event and claim on equal share in the properties so acquired by the 18t defendant The division of the properties should be the properties actually existing at the date of partition by metes and bounds and not the properties existing on the date the brothers became divided in status The disputes regarding the nature of the properties acquired subsequent to the date of compromise decree can be adjudicated upon in the same litigation and there is no need to drive the plaintiff to file a separate suit for partition in respect of such properties or respecting other claims and counter claims made by the parties regarding the mode in which the partition by metes and bounds should be finalised
C R P No 5350/80 Allowed
C R P No 5351/80 Dismissed
( 1 ) THESE two revisions are diracted against the common order dated 6-8-1980 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Cuddapah, in I. A. Nos. 475 and 476/30 permitting the plaintiff-respondant to amend the plaint schedule as well as the preliminary decree passed in O. S. No. 14/50 on his file with certain directions and liberties detailed in the said order. The defendant in the suit has preferred these two revisions assailing the correctness of the said order.
( 2 ) THE following facts become material. One Polireddy Subbi ready of Nagireddipalli, hamiet of Buggalapalli, died on or about 15-5-41, leaving him surviving his father Sura Reddy (2nd defendent), his widow veersmma (2nd plaintiff), two sons Polireddy Ramasubba Reddy (1st defendant) and Poiireddi Nagakrishna Reddy (1st plaintiff ). He also had a daughter. The deceased Subbi Reddy was a man of enterprise He started trade in batel leaves and acquired extensive properties in buggalapahi, Rudrayagaripalli and Nagireddipalli. Ha had a number of outstandiags. He owned also some movosbids, including gold and silver jewels. By the year of his death, both the 1st defendant and tha 1sr plaintiff were minors, aged about to years and one year. During their minority, their mother Veeramma was managing the properties. The 1st defendant attained majority in about tha year 1949. He took over the management of the family properties. Soon there after, disputes arose between the parties resulting in that two plaintiffs filing O. S. No. 14/50 on the file of the Sub judge, Cuddapah, for a partition of the family properties and for an account mutual recriminations were made by one against the other in that suit. Eiders, however, intervened and brought about a compromise between the partias in pursuance of which the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise on 21-3-1951. Ths material portion o1 the judgment ran"all the parties have to-day put in a petition of compromise which has been recorded. They pray for a decree in its terms. Tha suit is accordingly decreed in terms of the compromise. Plaintiff to put in the requisite nonjudicial stamp fcr the decree within 7 days"
( 3 ) THE requisite non-judicial stamps were accordingly filed before the Court on 28-3-1951 and the decree was drafted as a final decree in the suit.
( 4 ) THE following material portions of the decree become material"that the plaint immoveable properties and the movable properties in the lists 1 to 4 hereto are the self-acqulied properties of late Polireddy Subbareddy and lhat Ihe Second defendant has no right therein; (2) That the first plaintiff and the first defendant are dievided in status from this date; (3) That in the suit immoveable properties (land, house end gardens) the first plaintiff end the first defendant are each entitled to 1/2 (half) share; (4) That the actual division by metes and bounds be made after the plaintiff No. 1 attains majority, When the first plaintiff be at liberty to recover possession of his half share either by private arrangement with the first defendant or by getting a finel decree after the issue of commission for partition by metes and bounds; (5) That till the above said contingency takes place, the first defendant be in management of the 1st plaintiff s share also and give to 1st plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1750/- per annum; the said payment to be made in the month of March of every year, the first of such payments to be made in March, 1952. (6) That the firs? defendant do pay to the 1st plaintiff a sum of Rs. 2500/- towards his share of profits from the immoveable propertfes for 1950-51. (7) That the outstendings specified in lift No. 1 appended here to be given over to the share of the 1st plaintiff and the outstandings specified in list No. II be taken over by the 1st defendant and that the pronotes assigned to the 1st plaintiff s share be duly endorsed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 1st plaintiff represented by Receiver Sri. P. Subba Rao, B,a ,b L, pleader, Cud
