Key Points

Question

Key Points

Accepted Answer

This is a second appeal under Section 100 CPC against the judgment in A.S. No. 279 of 2012, arising from O.S. No. 183 of 2009, limited to Item No. 1 of plaint 'A' schedule property. (!) (!) (!) Appellants are defendants 2, 4 to 8; respondents 1 and 2 are plaintiffs (wife and son of 1st defendant); 3rd respondent is 1st defendant. (!) (!) (!) Plaintiffs sought partition of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties into two equal shares (one for 2nd plaintiff) and Rs. 12,000/- per annum maintenance for 1st plaintiff from 1st defendant, with charge on his share. (!) (!) Properties are ancestral, inherited or acquired from ancestral nucleus; fell to 1st defendant in partition between him and 2nd defendant (his brother); 1st defendant committing waste and sham transactions at instance of defendants 2 and 3, neglecting plaintiffs. (!) Defendants claimed Item No. 1 purchased jointly by 1st and 2nd defendants from self-earnings, later partitioned, with 1st defendant's share sold to 3rd defendant (2nd defendant's wife) under registered sale deed dated 26.06.2001. (!) Trial court framed issues on 2nd plaintiff's entitlement to partition, 1st plaintiff's maintenance, other reliefs, validity of sale to 3rd defendant, and purchases in plaintiffs' names. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Trial court decreed suit preliminarily; first appellate court dismissed appeal, confirming Item No. 1 as joint family property with 2nd plaintiff's share. (!) (!) (!) (!) Substantial questions of law: whether courts erred in decreeing partition without finding Item No. 1 as joint/ancestral property; maintainability of partial partition suit. (!) (!) (!) High Court cannot interfere with first appellate court's factual findings unless erroneous, contrary to law, based on inadmissible evidence, or without evidence. (!) Undisputed: plaintiffs are wife/son of 1st defendant; 2nd defendant is his brother; Items 2 and 3 of 'A' schedule are ancestral; defendants 1 and 2 have no independent income beyond cultivation. (!) Plaintiffs proved case via P.W.1 and Exs. A1-A17; 1st defendant failed to disprove, did not testify despite being alive, leading to presumption against his self-acquisition claim. (!) (!) (!) (!) 2nd defendant (D.W.1) admitted in cross-examination: Item No. 1 purchased jointly by defendants 1 and 2 from agricultural income (no other avocation); family is agricultural. (!) (!) Burden on party alleging joint family existence, but presumption arises if nucleus shown; here, plaintiffs proved acquisition from ancestral funds (income from Items 2 and 3). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Item No. 1 (Ac. 0-28½ cents, D. No. 164/1, Penumaka village) purchased jointly by defendants 1 and 2 on 25.02.1984 from ancestral nucleus; each got Ac. 0-14¼ cents on partition. (!) (!) (!) (!) 2nd plaintiff (born by 1984) has birth-right as coparcener to half share (Ac. 0-07⅛ cents) in 1st defendant's half (Ac. 0-14¼ cents); 1st defendant could alienate only his own half share. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Sale by 1st defendant of full Ac. 0-14¼ cents to 3rd defendant (Ex. B3, 26.06.2001) recited for debts, but no debt evidence; not binding on 2nd plaintiff's share (post-birth). (!) (!) (!) (!) Once son born, property revives as coparcenary; father cannot alienate son's share without legal necessity. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) 1st plaintiff entitled to maintenance as 1st defendant proved no self-acquisition and neglected her. (!) (!) (!) Second appeal dismissed; no illegality in lower courts' findings. (!) (!)

2025 Supreme(AP) 34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J
Meka Seshi Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Meka Puspavathi – Respondent

2025 Supreme(AP) 34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATISRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, JMeka Seshi Reddy – AppellantVersusMeka Puspavathi – Respondent

Related Judgments

Meka Seshi Reddy vs Meka Puspavathi - 2025 Supreme(AP) 34

Ganisetti Sitaramayya VS Ambati Lakshmi Kumari

Bharmappa VS Guddappa - 2022 Supreme(Kar) 998

Pachiammal VS Arjuna Gounder - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 414

S. Bhaskar Reddy vs S Raghu Rami Reddydied By L Rs - 2025 Supreme(AP) 79

V. Periyasamy (Died) VS Minor Sivasubramaniam - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 1062

Alamelu VS Palanisamy Gounder (Died) - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 1956

J Santhakumari, (Died) (Legal Heirs Recorded) Kunnuvilakathu Veedu VS Mohanan - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 1022

Mani S/o Kumarasami Naidu vs Palanisami S/o Kumarasami Naidu - 2026 Supreme(Mad) 448

Munithayamma W/o Dodda Bachappa VS Byanna S/o Byrappa - 2022 Supreme(Kar) 36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J
Meka Seshi Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Meka Puspavathi – Respondent