The Karta of a joint Hindu family cannot alienate a minor's undivided interest in joint family property without court permission, and the burden of proof lies on the party asserting self-acquisition.

JUDGMENT :

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellant/plaintiff challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 18.04.1996, in O.S. No.4 of 1995 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Avanigadda [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondents herein are the defendants in the said Suit.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed a Suit for partition of plaint schedule property into 3 equal shares and to allot one share each to the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.4 of 1995, are as under:

The plaintiff and the mother of the first defendant Dr.Ramadevi fell in love while they were studying medicine, their marriage was performed in March, 1976 and they started living in Hyderabad. Dr.Ramadevi continued her studies to obtain the degree in medicine even subsequent to the marriage. The first defendant 'Midhun' is the offspring of their wedlock and he born on 02.06.1977. There were some misunderstandings between the couple and a petition was filed for divorce in city Civil Court, Hyderabad by the plaintiff. On 11.11.1983 the said petition O.P.No.34 of 1983 was allowed on recording compromise. After the dissolution of the marriage, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition against first defendant on 27.01.1984 i.e., within 3 months from the date of dissolution of the marriage.

5. The first defendant filed his written statement, through his mother, denying the contents of the plaint and further contended as under:

The plaintiff suppressed more properties viz. Ac.18.44 cents of land and a house and the first defendant urged that those properties are also liable for partition.

6. When the suit was part heard, the second defendant filed a petition vide I.A.No.800 of 1991 on 29.08.1991 to implead him as second defendant alleging that he is born to the plaintiff through his second wife Santhisri on 20.07.1984 and he is also having one third share in the properties. The said petition was allowed in the High Court, thereafter, the plaint was suitably amended. Later the second defendant filed written statement contending that he is also entitled to 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties.

7. In the meanwhile, the first defendant became major and he has filed a separate written statement in addition to the written statement already filed by his mother. In the additional written statement, the first defendant contended that the second defendant is not the son of the plaintiff and he is introduced by the plaintiff only to reduce the legitimate share to be given to the first defendant.

8. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of partition of the plaint schedule properties into 2 equal shares and for separate possession of one such share?

(ii) What are the properties that are liable for partition?

(iii) To what relief?

ADDITIONAL ISSUES:

(iv) Whether the 2nd defendant is also entitled for an equal share with the plaintiff and first defendant?

(v) Whether 2nd defendant is the son of the legally wedded wife of the plaintiff as alleged by first defendant?

(vi) Whether 2nd defendant is entitled to any or 1/3rd share in the family properties of the plaintiff as contended by first defendant?

9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants DW1 and DW2 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B10 were marked.

10. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment, dated 18.04.1996, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court.

11. The application in A.S.M.P.No.1179 of 2008 is filed b