( 1 ) SINCE these two proceedings arise out of the same suit, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) APPELLANT in the second appeal is the revision petitioner in the revision petition. He filed the suit for partition of his 1/25th share in the plaint schedule properties and for other consequential reliefs which was dismissed by the trial Court and also the first appellate Court. For the sake of convenience, I would hereinafter refer to the parties to these proceedings as they are arrayed in the trial Court.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 6 are the children of Konda Reddy son of Obulamma. Defendants 8 and 10 are the brother and sister respectively of the 7th defendant. Plaintiff and defendants 11 to 14 are the children of Chinna Venkatamma, sister of the 7th defendant. 9th defendant is the daughter of Lakshumma wife of the 16th defendant. For the purpose of clarity, ex. A. 1 Geneology Tree is appended to this judgment. The case, in brief, of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule properties originally belonged to Chittem Narapu Reddy, who died about 60 years prior to the filing of the suit in 1999, whose wife, Subbakka, predeceased him leaving behind his son thirupal Reddy and two daughters venkatamma and Obulamma, his maternal grandmother, and Narayana Reddy, grandson of Narapu Reddy through his son thirupal Reddy. As Narayana Reddy died on 27-4-1955 unmarried, his maternal grandmother Obulamma became entitled to the plaint schedule properties which are left behind by him. Even otherwise also as obulamma, his grandmother, was in possession of the plaint schedule properties by the time of coming into force of the hindu Succession Act, 1956 (the Act), her limited estate got enlarged into a full estate and for that reason also he is entitled to 1/25th share in the plaint schedule properties.

( 4 ) THE case of the defendants is that chinna Venkatamma, elder sister of obulamma, was married to Pedda Konda reddy who died about 55 years back leaving behind he son. Since Narayana reddy died intestate on 27-4-1955 i. e. , before the coming into force of the Act, Peda konda Reddy, husband of 15th defendant, and others have inherited the property left behind by Narapu Reddy. Obulamma, being the paternal aunt of Narayana Reddy, is not and cannot be his heir as per Hindu law in force at that time. So, the plaintiff, who is claiming through Obulamma, is not entitled to the relief sought.

( 5 ) THE trial Court accepted the contention of defendants that Peda Konda reddy s/o. Venkatamma, being the male bandhu, has preference over the female bandhus and so though Obulamma is nearer in degree than that of male bandhu konda Reddy, she did not inherit the estate of Narayana Reddy and so the plaintiff is not entitled to seek partition of the plaint schedule properties and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby plaintiff preferred an appeal to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge. During the pendency of the appeal, plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint taking a plea that as he came to know that the plaint schedule property in fact did not belong to Narayana Reddy and were the property of Subbakka mother of Obulamma, he may be permitted to make the necessary amendments in the plaint taking a plea that the plaint schedule property belonged to Subbakka. After contest by the defendants the first appellate court dismissed that petition and the appeal also. Hence the civil revision petition and the second appeal.

( 6 ) THE second appeal was admitted by a learned Judge on the following substantial questions of law :

(1) Whether succession opens as per the principles of old Hindu Law or as per the principles of Hindu succession Act ?

(2) Whether the possession of Obulamma got itself enlarged with absolute rights under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu succession Act ?

( 7 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that since the appellant was not fully aware of the fact as to how his ancestors acquired the plaint s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document