The court ruled that properties devolved under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act are not ancestral and thus not subject to partition among coparceners.

JUDGMENT :

K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

The present Second Appeal is preferred by the appellants aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated 08.05.2024 passed in A.S.No.63 of 2018 on the file of the VI Additional District Jduge, Kurnool by parly allowing the preliminary decree passed in O.S No.573 of 2011 dated 03.07.2018 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool

2. The appellant herein is plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.573 of 2011 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool (for short “the trial Court”).

3. For convenience the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool (for short “the trial Court”) in O.S..No.573 of 2011.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the son of the defendant. He is co-parcener along with the defendant constitute Hindu undivided joint family. The plaint schedule property is undivided joint family property which is the ancestral property. The plaintiff and the defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The parties to the suit as coparceners have unchallenged half share in the suit schedule property. Sambhasiva Reddy who is grandfather of the plaintiff died about 1990 and the suit schedule property came into possession after division among the children of Sambhasiva Reddy. The plaintiff was demand on or about 15.09.2011 for division of the suit schedule property into two equal shares and to allot respective share to the plaintiff. Later, the defendant promised to effect the division by 20.09.2011, but he did not keep up his promise. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S HNo.573 of 2011.

5. The defendant filed his written statement and denied that the plaintiff is in joint possession with him. In fact, the plaintiff is residing with his mother in Bijanur village, whereas the properties are in the Orvakal and this fact discloses that the plaintiff is neither in joint possession nor notional possession of the properties. It is stated that Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property does not belongs to this defendant. It is the property of Sakunthalamma @ Rameswaramma and she got from the government under Indiramma Pathakam and it is also not liable for partition. Further, the mother of the plaintiff deserted the defendant since 1986 without any reason. This defendant got two sons by name Bharath Kumar Reddy and Siva Sankar Reddy through his kept mistress Sakunthalamma @ Rameswaramma who has also got share in the plaint schedule property of Item No.2 of the plaint schedule. The item No.2 of schedule property was acquired by the funds supplied by Sakunthalamma @ Rameswaramma and thus, this property belongs to Sakunthalamma @ Rameswaramma. In fact, the said land was given on lease to one Chenna Nalk for 15 years under Regd. Lease deed and it is not liable for partition and the suit is liable for dismissal. Without prejudice in the rights of this defendant, he submitted that the plaintiff is not at all entitled in the item Nos 3 and 4 of the property and the other sons through Sakunthalamma @ Rameswaramma were also entitled the share in the properties. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for determination:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the schedule mentioned property into two equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff as prayed for ?

2. Whether the schedule mentioned property is the exclusive property of Sakunthalamma @ Rameswaramma as contended by the defendant in his written statement?

3. To what relief ?

7. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On the defendant' side, the defendant alone was examined as DW.1 and marked Exs.B1 to 87.

8. After careful appreciation on record the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant pref