This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 17.08.2011 rendered by the Court of II Additional District Judge, Ongole in A.S.No.75 of 2010. Through the said judgment, the lower appellate Court decreed O.S.No.4 of 2005 filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki.

The relevant facts in brief are as under:

One Sri Sadhineni Venkatarao got various items of property through partition in the joint family, as well as through settlement from the first wife of his father. First appellant is the wife, second appellant and second respondent are daughters and first respondent is the mother of Venkatarao. He died on 15.09.2004. Respondents 1 and 2 that is mother and one daughter of Venkatarao filed O.S.No.4 of 2005 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. They pleaded that the first appellant who is the wife of Venkatarao is trying to alienate the property on the assumption that she is the absolute owner and that by operation of law, the property has devolved upon all the class-I heirs. The suit was resisted by the appellants by filing a written statement. According to them, the suit schedule property was the self-acquisition of Venkatarao and that the same is not available for partition. The trial Court dismissed the suit through judgment dated 30.11.2009. Aggrieved thereby, respondents 1 and 2 filed A.S.No.75 of 2010 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Ongole. The same was allowed on 17.08.2011 by taking the view that on the death of Venkatarao, the property has devolved by succession on all his class-I heirs. The third respondent is the brother of Venkatarao and since one of the items of the suit schedule property is a dwelling house, he too was impleaded in the suit. The fourth respondent was impleaded only in the context of verification of accuracy of revenue records.

Sri C. Panduranga Rao, learned counsel for the appellants submits that all the suit schedule properties are self acquisitions in the hands of Venkatarao since they constituted either a share, which he got in the partition, or through settlement from his step mother. He submits that the trial Court has taken correct view of the matter but the lower appellate Court has reversed the judgment on wrong assumption of facts and law. He placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court and this Court.

Sri G. Pedda Babu, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 on the other hand submits that though the property may have partaken the character of self acquired property during the life time of Venkatarao, after his death, it is available for partition among the class-I heirs. He submits that the matter is covered by Section 8 and not Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’).

The trial Court framed two issues for consideration, which reads as under:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of plaint schedule property into four shares and allotment of 1/4th share as prayed for?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2, from alienating the suit schedule property?

On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, PWs 1 and 2 deposed as witnesses and Exs. A1 to A6 were filed. On behalf of the appellants, DWs 1 to 4 were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. The suit was dismissed and in the appeal filed against it, the lower appellate Court framed the following issues and allowed the appeal.

(3) Whether the 1st plaintiff is entitled to claim share in the schedule properties?

(4) Whether the next friend of the 2nd plaintiff can file the suit on behalf of the 2nd plaintiff for partition of the properties of her father?

(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the partition and separate possession of the shares in the schedule properties as claimed?

(6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the Permanent Injunction as prayed for?

(7) To what relief?

The controversy between the parties centres aro