Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.SESHACHALAPATI
Duvvara Latchandhora (died) by Lrs.Venkanadhora - Appellant
Versus
Duvvari Chinnavadu - Respondent
Decided On : 02-20-62
HINDU LAW - JOINT FAMILY - PARTITION - STATUS OF FAMILY - DISRUPTION - EVIDENCE - ACQUISITIONS BY BRANCHES - WHETHER JOINT OR SELF-ACQUIRED - COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 12 were members of a Hindu joint family governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition of the family properties. The defendants pleaded that the family had been disrupted more than 50 years ago and that certain properties were their self-acquired properties.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the family had not been disrupted and that the properties in dispute were joint family properties. However, the court held that certain properties were the self-acquired properties of the defendants and excluded them from the partition.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 12 are members of a joint family? 2. Whether item 4 of lot III of A Schedule is the self-acquired property of the 1st defendant? 3. Whether item 3 of lot III of A Schedule is the self-acquired properties of the 10th defendant respectively? 4. Whether items 5 and 7 of lot III of Schedule A, were delivered to Lanka Bheemanna Patrudu in pursuance of an agreement of sale, and whether there was an oral exchange of those items with item 6 of lot III; and 5. Whether lots 4 and 5 of A Schedule, and the C Schedule properties are also liable to partition.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the family had not been disrupted based on the following factors: - The members of the family had been living separately in different portions of the family house and had also been cultivating separately some family lands for the maintenance of their respective families. - The bulk of the properties remained under the management of the 10th defendant, Sanyassayya, and that the family acquired a few properties, which were treated and enjoyed as joint family properties. - The defendants had been secreting the income from the family land, creating debts and that the properties, therefore, be divided between the three branches. 2. The court held that item 4 of lot III of A Schedule was the self-acquired property of the 1st defendant as it was acquired from out of the savings of the income from the lands cultivated by Lachandhoras branch for maintenance. 3. The court held that item 3 of lot III of A Schedule was also the self-acquired property of the 10th defendant as it was acquired from out of the income from the lands cultivated by his branch for maintenance. 4. The court held that items 5 and 7 of lot III of A Schedule were not liable to partition as they were delivered to Lanka Bheemanna Patrudu in pursuance of an agreement of sale dated 16-2-1937.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal filed by the defendants and dismissed the suit for partition. The court also directed that each party bear its own costs throughout, including at the stage of the final decree proceedings.
( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of O. S. No. 63 of 1950 instituted by the respondents 1 to 3 in A. S. No. 328 of 1953 who are also appellants in A. S. No. 682 of 1953, for partition of their family properties set out in plaint Schedules A, B and C into three shares and to allotment to them of one such share, and for future profits, in that suit original 33 defendants had been imp leaded and on the death of defendant No. 32, his legal representatives were, during the pendency of the action, imp leaded as defendants 34, and 35. Defendants 1 to 12 are members of the other two branches of Duvvari family entitled along with the plaintiffs to their respective shares in the family estate. The other defendants are yearly tenants cultivating some of the family lands on terminable leases. One Panthala Venkanna and two others filed O. S. No. 143/50 for the partition of the properties belonging to the Duvvari family and for the allotment of 1/4 share thereof to the plaintiffs upon the footing that the father of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in that suit was brought into the Duvvari family as an illatom son-in-law. Both the suits were tried together and a common judgment was rendered by the learned Addl. Subordinate Judge. In O. S. No. 143/1950, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the custom of illatom adoption in the Ayyaraka community to which the families belong, and that they had also failed to prove that Chinnodu was taken into the Duvvari family as an illatom son-in-law. He, however, found that the properties described in Schedule A attached to the plaint in that suit were in the possession of the plaintiffs therein, and that they had prescribed title thereto by adverse possession. Upon those findings, he dismissed the suit for partition with costs. There is no appeal against that decision.
( 2 ) THE following genealogical table will show the relationship of the parties:
( 3 ) IT is seen from the above table that the common ancestor was Duwari Bheemandhora. By three different wives he had three sons, Venkannadhora, Chinna Venkannadhora, and Apparayudu. China Venkannadhora, the second of the brothers had two sons, China Bheemanna, and Satyanarayana. They are both dead. China Bheemanna has two sons, Chinnavadu and China Chinnodu. They are plaintiffs 1 and 2. The 3rd plaintiff, Venkannadhora, is the son of Satyanarayana (deceased) who was the son of China Venkannadhora. The plaintiffs, therefore, represent the branch of China Venkannadhora. Defendant No. 1 in the son of Venkannadhora, the 1st son of Bheemandhora, the common ancestor. Defendants 2 to 4 are his sorts. Defendants 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are the sons of the two deceased brothers of the 1st defendant. Thus defendants 1 to 9 represent the branch of Venkannadhora. Defendant 10 is the son of Apparayadu, the third son of Bheemandhora. Defendants 11 and 12 are his sons. They, therefore, represent Apparayudus branch.
( 4 ) THE case of the plaintiffs is that they and defendants 1 to 12 constitute a Hindu joint family governed by the Mitakshara school of the Hindu law, that there had never been any division in status though the three branches have been living separately In different portions of the family house and had also been cultivating separately some family lands for the maintenance of their respective families. The bulk of the properties, It Is alleged, remained under the management of the 10th defendant, Sanyassayya, and that the family acquired a few properties, which were treated and enjoyed as joint family properties. It is alleged that the defendants have been secreting the income from the family land, creating debts and that the properties, therefore, be divided between the three branches.
( 5 ) IN a long written statement, the contesting defendants pleaded that more than 50 years ago the three sons of the common ancestor became separated in residence, mess and dealings, that there was a division between the 1st defendant a
AI
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
