The presumption of joint family status in Hindu law requires clear evidence to establish prior partition; the Appellate Court allowed partition of one property acquired post-partition while dismissing claims for others.

JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) is file d by the Appellant/Plaintiff challenging the decree and Judgment dated 16.07.2015 in O.S. No. 208 of 2010 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Guntur, (for short, ‘trial Court’).

2. The Appellant is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S. No. 208 of 2010 against the Defendants seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties into 32 equal shares and for allotment of nine such shares to Plaintiff.

3. Referring to the parties as they are initially arrayed in the suit is reasonable to mitigate confusion and better comprehend the case.

4. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:

Takkellapati Venkata Reddy, the father of Defendants 1 to 3, 5 to 7, and Takkellapati Sambi Reddy, passed away in 1991, leaving his entire estate to his legal heirs, including the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The fourth Defendant is Venkata Reddy’s wife. The plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties of the Plaintiff’s father, Takkellapati Sambi Reddy, who died in a road accident about 25 years ago, leaving the Plaintiff as his sole legal heir. Raised by the fourth Defendant, the Plaintiff married in 2001, while Defendants 3, 5, 6, and 7 were married before 1985. For convenience and to access government benefits, the properties were shown as individually owned by family members, though they remain undivided. The Plaintiff has demanded a partition and separate possession of these properties but has received no cooperation from the Defendants, prompting the filing of this suit.

5. The first Defendant filed a written statement, which the 5th Defendant adopted. In the written statement statement, the 1st Defendant acknowledged the relationship between the parties and the death of the Plaintiff’s father in 1981. He stated that before the Plaintiff’s father’s death, Defendants 1 and 2, the Plaintiff’s father, and their father, Venkata Reddy, partitioned the joint family properties. The joint family-owned item no. 1 of the property, along with additional Ac. 0.75 cents and another tract of 1.25 acres, is not listed in the plaint schedule. In the partition, Defendants 1 and 2 received Ac. 0.75 cents each from item no. 1, and the remaining Ac. 0.75 cents, not shown in the schedule, was allotted to the Plaintiff’s father. The Plaintiff’s father and Venkata Reddy shared Ac. 1.25 cents, with Venkata Reddy receiving Ac. 0.75 cents and the Plaintiff’s father getting Ac. 0.50 cents. Items 2, 3, and 4 of the plaint schedule were allocated to Defendants 1 and 2, who have since enjoyed their respective shares. Consequently, the first Defendant holds Ac. 0.75 cents in item no. 1, Ac. 0.58 cents in item no. 2, half of Ac. 0.26 cents, and half of item no. 4. Pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued to the Plaintiff and Defendants for their respective shares. After Plaintiff’s father’s death, Defendant No. 1 sold Ac. 1.25 cents, and Plaintiff utilized the proceeds. Therefore, the Ac. 0.75 cents allocated to the Plaintiff’s father is now in the Plaintiff’s possession.

Since the joint family properties were partitioned before 1981, Defendants 3 to 7 have no rights over them. Item no. 3 of the plaint schedule is being used by Defendants 1 and 2 as a cattle shed. Item no. 4 is a residential house allotted to Defendants 1 and 2. Since the partition, they have been residing in their respective shares. The first Defendant constructed an RCC building in the open space, assessed by the Gram Panchayat, Undavalli. The tiled portion was assessed with Assessment No. 332, and the RCC building with Assessment No. 333. The door number for the tiled house is 1-374, and for the RCC building, it is 1-374/1. Therefore, the tiled portion and the RCC building in item no. 4 are in the exclusive possession of the first Defendant. There are