The main legal point established is the requirement for consistent evidence and proper pleading to establish joint family properties and entitlement to partition, emphasizing the significance of documentary evidence such as patta and passbook in determining ownership and possession of the properties.

JUDGMENT :

This Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 16.11.2018, in Original Suit No.18 of 2014, on the file of the Court of XV Additional District Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District (for short, ‘the learned Additional District Judge’) where under the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the Suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs.

2. The parties to the Appeal Suit will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, according to the averments in plaint in O.S. No.18 of 2014 on the file of the Court of XV Additional District Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District is that plaintiffs’ father by name Madala Venkata Ratnam had landed properties described in the annexed schedule, which are referred as plaint schedule properties. The said Madala Venkata Ratnam was having joint family with his sons and daughters. Plaintiffs are the daughters and their father had three sons namely Madala Venkata Rao, Madala Surya Narayana and Madala Raja Rao. Madala Raja Rao died long back as a Hindu joint family member without marriage and his joint share devolved on the remaining joint family members. While so, Madala Venkata Ratnam died in the year 1983. After his death, Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property are not partitioned and they are in joint possession. The defendants paid mesne profits to the plaintiffs’ till 2011. After that they ignored to allot the share and mesne profits.

(ii) In the year 1986, plaintiffs brother namely Madala Suryanarayana and one Madala Venkateswara Rao jointly purchased Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property. Madala Raja Rao died after purchasing the said property. Hence, Raja Rao’s 1/3rd share in the said property also fell upon the remaining joint family members. Plaintiffs are having right and they are in constructive possession jointly relating to Item No.3 of the schedule property. Since 2011, plaintiffs several times requested the defendants for partition of the property according to law but they did not hear the same and stopped to allot any mesne profits also. The plaintiffs are having share along with others and the said property is to be divided into shares and one such share is to be allotted to the plaintiffs each by meets and bounds. Therefore, they are entitled to 1/4th share each in the plaint schedule Items 1 and 2 and 1/4th share each relating to deceased Raja Rao’s share in the plaint schedule Item No.3, which they are legally entitled.

There was no previous partition effected between the legal heirs of late Venkata Ratnam. As first defendant is acting detrimental to the interest of the plaintiffs, they are not inclined to continue the joint possession and enjoyment. Several times they demanded the defendants to co-operate with them for partition but in vain. Hence, the plaintiffs are advised to file the Suit for partition.

4. The defendants 2 to 4 before the learned Additional District Judge were set ex parte.

5. First defendant alone contested the Suit by filing a written statement. The first defendant got filed a written statement denying the averments in the plaint and his contention in substance is that father of this defendant and the plaintiffs i.e., Madala Venkataratnam had never possessed any immovable property as of his own or ancestral. There is no joint family property at any point of time for the family consisting of Venkataratnam and his sons including first defendant. First defendant’s native place is Annavaram village in Nuzvid Mandal. They used to make livelihood by doing coolie works and by working as farm servants. Their family did not possess any landed property either at Annavaram or anywhere. After attaining majority, first defendant has occupied some government land i.e., Ac.2.38 cents in RS No.32/2 in Annavaram village i.e., Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property, as he is a landless poor person. Similarly, his elder brother Suryanarayana has also occupied