IMPORTANT POINT
A party who has relinquished their rights in joint family properties cannot later claim partition or execute a will regarding those properties.

JUDGMENT :

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 07-01-2004 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri, Anantapur District, in O.S.No.18 of 1993. The suit is filed for the relief of partition and separate possession of 3/8th share of plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the plaint schedule properties and to direct the defendant to pay future mesne profits to the plaintiffs from the date of plaint till the date of delivery of properties to the plaintiffs and for costs of the suit.

2. The case of the plaintiffs as narrated in the plaint, in brief, is as follows:

(a) It is pleaded that the plaint schedule properties originally belonged to one Saddapalli Venkata Reddy, son of S. Bali Reddy of Cherlopalli, hamlet of Kassamudram, Amadaguru Mandal. He was in possession and enjoyment of the same. He died on 01-9-1947 leaving behind him, his two wives i.e. the 1st plaintiff and one Lakshmi Narasamma. The said Venkata Reddy had married one Salemma who pre-deceased him. The said Venkata Reddy died issueless. During his life time, the said Venkata Reddy had adopted the defendant. The said Venkata Reddy died undivided with his adopted son who is the defendant.

(b) It is further pleaded that after the death of the said Venkata Reddy, the 1st plaintiff, her co-widow Lakshmi Narasamma and the defendant all became entitled to the plaint schedule properties. The defendant has been paying land revenue for the schedule mentioned properties on behalf of himself and the 1st plaintiff and at the time of sharing the produce, the defendant has been deducting some produce to be given to the 1st plaintiff towards proportionate share of land revenue payable by the 1st plaintiff for her share in the schedule mentioned properties.

(c) It is further pleaded that the 1st plaintiff died on 25-9-1998 at Kadiri, leaving behind her the plaintiffs 2 and 3 as the only legal representatives to succeed her estate. The 2nd plaintiff is the younger brother, while the 3rd plaintiff is the son of the 1st plaintiff’s another younger brother viz., M. Venkata Krishna Reddy. The welfare of the deceased 1st plaintiff was looked after by the 2nd plaintiff and the father of 3rd plaintiff. The deceased 1st plaintiff has no issues whatsoever and she is to reside with both the 2nd plaintiff and the father of 3rd plaintiff. During her life time, the 1st plaintiff bequeathed all her properties including her claim in the above suit equally to the plaintiffs 2 and 3 by executing a registered Will on 16-5-1998 in their favour in a sound disposing state of mind and out of free will and volition. The said Will is the last testament of the testator. The said Will has been acted upon and by virtue of the said Will, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 became entitled to all the properties of the deceased 1st plaintiff including her claim in the above suit. Hence, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are entitled for the decree for the 3/8th share of the deceased 1st plaintiff in the plaint schedule mentioned properties as prayed for.

(d) It is further pleaded that due to misunderstandings between the 1st plaintiff and the defendant, the 1st plaintiff felt it no longer beneficial for her to enjoy the plaint schedule mentioned properties jointly with the defendant. The 1st plaintiff made several demands on the defendant for amicable partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule mentioned properties and the defendant while acknowledging 3/8th share of the 1st plaintiff and her joint possession of the plaint schedule mentioned properties, has not complied with the request of the 1st plaintiff and that the 1st plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

3. Brief averments in the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:

(a) It is contended that in the year 1947 itself, the 1st plaintiff herein filed O.P.No.108 of 1947 on the file of District Court, Anantapur and at that time, elders mutually interested in the parties effected a settlement between the 1st p