JUDGMENT :

Plaintiff in the suit filed above second appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2022 in A.S.No.16 of 2016 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Rajampet, confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2016 in O.S.No.94 of 2005 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this judgment are referred to as per their array in plaint.

3. Suit O.S.No.94 of 2005 was filed for partition of plaint schedule properties into three equal shares and allotment of one share to him or alternatively to direct the defendants 1 to 3 to execute registered document in favour of the plaintiff in respect of plaint B schedule property.

4. In the plaint, it was contended inter-alia that defendants 1 and 2 are husband and wife, plaintiff and 3rd defendant are their sons; that 1st defendant’s father B. Gopalaiah died about 20 years back leaving behind 1st defendant and one Ramakrishna; that there was oral partition of properties owned and possessed by Gopalaiah between 1st defendant and his brother Ramakrishna; that plaint schedule properties fell to the share of 1st defendant; that 1st defendant, retired teacher used to attend agricultural operations personally and also leased out the properties; that 1st defendant purchased item Nos.1 to 9, 19 and 20 of schedule properties, out of the income derived from joint family properties; that 1st defendant purchased some properties in the name of 2nd defendant; that 2nd defendant has no source of income to purchase the properties; that plaintiff, defendants 1 and 3 constitute Hindu undivided joint family; that plaintiff demanded defendants 1 and 3 to effect partition and finally, partition was effected on 04.09.2004 dividing the properties among them; that plaint B schedule property fell to the share of plaintiff; however, defendants 1 and 3 convinced the plaintiff to enter into partition deed without effecting the same by way of registered document; that plaintiff issued legal notice on 29.08.2005 to defendants; that 1st defendant was also blessed with four daughters and all of them are married and they have no right or share in the schedule properties and thus, filed the suit for partition.

5. Defendants 1 and 2 filed separate written statements. 3rd Defendant filed memo adopting the written statement of 1st defendant.

6. 1st Defendant in the written statement contended interalia that in the partition between himself and his brother Ramakrishna held on 21.10.1975, he got an extent of Ac.1.34½ cents of wet land and Ac.2.35 cents of dry land situated at Upparapalli of Settigunta; that partition dated 04.09.2004 was not acted upon; that apart from plaintiff and 3rd defendant, defendants 1 and 2 blessed with four daughters and they are also entitled to share in the joint family properties; that item Nos.1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9, 19 and 20 are Sridhana properties of 2nd defendant; that item Nos.10 to 12, 16, 18, 26 and 27 of plaint A schedule properties are ancestral properties; that 1st defendant joined as school teacher in the year 1966 and retired as Head Master in Z.P. High School in 1996; that from his savings, he purchased item Nos.13 to 17; that item No.2 of plaint A schedule property is an assigned land; that 1st defendant is a writer and obtained royalty for publishing his books; that as per amendment to Hindu Succession Act, daughters are also entitled to share and thus prayed the Court to dismiss the suit for non-joinder of necessary parties also.

7. 2nd Defendant in the written statement contended inter-alia that item Nos.1, 3 to 5, 7 to 9, 19 and 20 of plaint A schedule are her self-acquired properties; that she purchased item Nos.3 to 5 under a registered sale deed dated 31.10.1984, item Nos.1 and 7 under a registered sale deed dated 02.07.1983, item No.9 under a registered sale deed dated 24.07.1989, item No.8 under a registered sale deed dated 17.09.1980 and also item No.19 vacant site, item No.20 under a registered sale deed date