Point of Law : Doctrine of election - doctrine of election is a facet of law of estoppel and that a party cannot blow and hot and cold at the same time.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the court of Subordinate Judge at Sathupalli in O.S.No.27 of 1989 dated 29.08.1996, wherein and whereby the trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession. Thus the unsuccessful plaintiff before the trial court is the appellant herein.

2. Heard Sri G. Ravi Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri D. Jaipal Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as per their array in the civil suit.

4. The plaintiff filed suit being O.S.No.27 of 1989 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sathupalli for partition of A-schedule property into two equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot one such share to him, and to deliver peaceful and vacant possession of the property.

5. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the younger brother of defendant No.1 and that A-schedule property is the joint family property which was acquired under registered sale deed executed by Smt. Devi Laxmidevamma in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.1; that defendant No.1 was working as a Teacher and the plaintiff is attending to agricultural works at Kothur; and being the elder brother of the plaintiff, documents were obtained in the name of defendant No.1. However, since all the properties are being enjoyed by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 jointly, they were treated as joint family property. A letter dated 27.05.1956 was addressed by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff stating that entire properties are joint family properties and that he had agreed to divide the properties and give half share to the plaintiff after a period of two years.

6. It was further stated by the plaintiff that he had been managing the entire joint family properties situated at Ammapalem village by paying land revenue for the entire land and that the produce from the land was being shared equally by plaintiff and defendant No.1, and the plaintiff had been residing in a thatched house constructed in Survey No.240 admeasuring Ac.1-00 at Kothuru village and defendant No.1 was residing at Peddapadu village in a thatched house which was bequeathed by Devi Laxmidevamma. At the time of filing declarations under Andhra Pradesh Land Ceiling of Agricultural Holding Act, defendant No.1 filed a declaration in L.C.C.No.542/STP, wherein he had shown total extent of land i.e., Acs.6-38 guntas of wet land and Acs.46-25 guntas of dry land situated at Ammapalem Village as joint family properties and claimed half share out of the same and excluding remaining half of the property belonging to the plaintiff; and as per the order passed by Land Reforms Tribunal No.II, Khammam, dated 20-10-1976, the defendant No.1 was declared as non-surplus holder.

7. Plaintiff further stated that while things stood thus, defendant No.1 retired from service and wanted to settle at Rayudupalem H/o Ammapalem village. Since Schedule-B and Schedule-C properties are also joint family properties, they were liable for partition. It was also contended by the plaintiff that he alone had been paying land revenue for the land described in B-Schedule due to temporary agreement, and therefore, he is entitled to get share in the said property but defendant No.1 did not cooperate. However, plaintiff also demanded for partition of A-schedule property but defendant No.1 evaded for partition, and negotiating with one Bandi Laxma Reddy to sell Ac.9-26 guntas of land in Survey No.402, Ac.15-01 gunta in Survey No.401 and Ac.5-38 guntas in Survey No.399 which is in one compact block. It was alleged by the plaintiff that defendant No.1 transferred some of the items of mentioned schedule properties by way of a Gift Settlement Deed dated 28.08.1982 in favour of his daughter/defendant No.2. Therefore, plaintiff contended that in order to evade future complications, he sought for partition of A-schedule property into two equal shar