The main legal point established in the judgment is the acceptance of evidence and facts regarding earlier oral partition and relinquishment of share, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's suit.

JUDGMENT:

1. A Hindu male attempted to have joint family properties partitioned but failed in convincing two Courts below came up with this second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. assailing the judgments of the Courts below.

2. The present appellant filed O.S.No.197 of 2003 as against his mother, two brothers and his paternal grandmother who are family members and others who do not belong to their family. There are three items of immovable properties shown in the plaint schedule. Plaintiff sought for partition of those properties. After due trial, by a judgment dated 28.07.2010 learned trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved of it, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.26 of 2010. Learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri by a judgment dated 06.08.2012 dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. It is against that judgment, the present second appeal is preferred.

3. On 22.04.2016 a learned Judge of this Court admitted the second appeal on two substantial questions of law. Subsequently, the appellant preferred I.A.No.1 of 2014 for reformulation of substantial questions of law. After due hearing, the said application was allowed and the following substantial questions of law were formulated in this second appeal:

1. Whether the judgment of first appellate Court is not in accordance with law as it failed to advert to any of the grounds that are mentioned in the memorandum of grounds of appeal and failed to formulate appropriate questions for its consideration and thereby violated Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C. leading to incorrect conclusions?

2. Whether the contents of Ex.B2 were incorrectly appreciated by both the Courts below leading to erroneous conclusions?

3. Whether there was no evidence on record to conclude relinquishment of share by the appellant in the share of their father and both the Courts below reached to perverse conclusions?

4. To appreciate the contentions raised here, it is required to see what transpired before the Courts below. A few facts are not in dispute. Smt. Alla Naga Siromani and Sri Vishnuvardhana Rao are wife and husband. They have got three sons. Plaintiff is one of the sons. His two siblings were shown as defendant Nos.2 and 3. Their mother was shown as defendant No.1. The said Vishnuvardhana Rao’s mother is Smt. Alla Saraswathi. She was shown as 6th defendant in the suit. As the plaintiff suspected that pending suit the defendants would alienate the properties in favour of Sri Movva Sivaiah, the said individual was sued by showing him as defendant No.4. The SubRegistrar, Mangalagiri was shown as defendant No.5. During progress of the case, it was found that defendant Nos.4 and 5 have nothing to do and their participation was also not there during any phase of the litigation.

5. In the plaint it is mentioned that all the plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties and therefore, they are joint family properties and the joint family consisted of the wife and husband and their three children and the mother of Sri Vishnuvardhana Rao. It is alleged that among them there was no partition of these joint family properties. On 15.04.2003 Sri Vishnuvardhana Rao died intestate. Despite demands other sharers were not coming forward and therefore suit for partition is filed. The claim in the plaint indicates a claim for one share in the joint family properties for the plaintiff and one share from the share that fell to the share of plaintiff’s father Sri Vishnuvardhana Rao. It is with those allegations the suit was laid claiming for division of properties into 20 equal shares and allotment of 6/20th share to plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3, 1/20th share to defendant Nos.1 and 6 and division was sought to be by metes and bounds by delivering possession to each share of his/her respective share and for mesne profits and for costs and such other reliefs.

6. Resisting the suit, the mother/defendant No.1 filed a written statement and her two children/defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed a memo ado