In matters of partition, proof of ancestral property entitlement and the absence of substantial legal questions are critical for appeal outcomes.

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 14-9-2018 in A.S.No.34 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 01-5-2008 in O.S.No.717 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

2. The appellant herein is the 2^nd defendant, the 1^st respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 and 3 are defendants 1 and 3 in O.S.No.717 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.717 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, with a prayer for partition and separate possession of 1/8^th share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties and for costs of the suit.

4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, decreed the suit with costs, by passing a preliminary decree granting 1/8^th share in the suit schedule properties to the plaintiff. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful 2^nd defendant in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal suit before the first appellate Court. The learned I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, dismissed the appeal suit by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful 2^nd defendant /appellant approached this Court by way of second appeal. During the pendency of second appeal, the sole appellant died and the 2^nd appellant, who is his wife, was brought on record as legal representative of deceased sole appellant vide I.A.No.1 of 2022 as per Court order dated 30-12-2024.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.717 of 2004, is as follows:

(a) It is pleaded that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are children of late Chinna Naganna and Smt. Venkatamma and defendants 1 and 3 are her sisters, whereas the 2^nd defendant is her brother. Their father inherited various properties from his ancestors and he also acquired some other properties from out of his earnings from ancestral properties which are mentioned in the plaint schedule. Her mother predeceased her father intestate and her father died in the year 1986 leaving behind her and defendants 1 to 3 only as his legal representatives to succeed the plaint schedule properties.

(b) It is further pleaded that after the death of their father, the 2^nd defendant being the only male member of the family used to manage the suit schedule properties on behalf of all the legal heirs and he used to give some amount now and then every year towards their share from the income derived from the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff came to know that the 2^nd defendant was secretly trying to alienate some of the properties without the consent and knowledge of other sharers, due to that she orally demanded the defendants 1 to 3 for partition of the suit schedule properties, but they postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Then, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 08-10-2003 calling upon the defendants 1 to 3 for amicable division of the suit schedule properties. But, the defendants who had received the legal notice neither come forward nor gave reply. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/8^th share in the plaint schedule properties.

7. The defendants 1 and 3 remained ex parte before the trial Court and they had not chosen to contest the suit.

8. The 2^nd defendant filed written statement denying the contents of plaint averments and he further contended as follows:

The 2^nd defendant admitted the relationship among the parties as set out in the plaint and he also admitted that their mother predeceased their father. It is submitted that the marriages of plaintiff, defendants 1 and 3 were performed more than 35 years back.