JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri K.A. Narasimham, learned counsel appearing for Sri V. Sai Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri M.R.S.

Srinivas learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff.

2. Defendants 3 and 6 in the original suit are the appellants herein. For ease of reference, the parties are being referred to as they have been arrayed in the suit.

3. The 1st defendant is the common ancestor. He was married to the 9th defendant. The 1st defendant had two children, viz., the 2nd defendant-son and the 8th defendant-daughter. The 2nd defendant had two sons and three daughters, viz., the 3rd defendant and late Sri Pulla Rao, who is the husband of the plaintiff, who are sons; and defendants 5 to 7, who are the daughters of the 2nd defendant. The 4th defendant is the son of the 3rd defendant. The plaintiff is the wife of late Sri Pulla Rao, who was the other son of the 2nd defendant. In addition to this, the plaintiff is also the daughter of the 8th defendant. The 1st defendant, 2nd defendant and 9th defendant have passed away. The wife of the 2nd defendant had also died and the date of her death is not available.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that she was married to her first cousin, i.e., late Sri Pulla Rao. She had given birth to a daughter on

2 RRR,J.

16.05.1990, who unfortunately passed away within three months after her birth. Late Sri Pulla Rao, the husband of the plaintiff passed away intestate on 11.05.2003 leaving the plaintiff as his only legal heir. The plaintiff is said to have continued to reside in the matrimonial home along with defendants 1 to 4 and 9 after the death of her husband. However, the 2nd defendant started behaving badly with her and quarrelled with her and demanded her to go to her parents house stating that she had no share in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff also came to know that defendants 2 and 3 had made the 1st defendant to execute certain settlement deeds in the names of defendants 3 and 4 in respect of some of the plaint schedule properties as if they are his exclusive and absolute properties. Having come to know of these facts, the plaintiff had filed O.S.No.226 of 2005 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur for partition of the suit schedule properties on the ground that they were joint family properties on which every coparcener had a share and that she would be entitled to a separate share amounting to 1/3 in the properties as the legal heir of her husband late Sri Pulla Rao.

7. Defendants 8 and 9 remained ex-parte. The written statement filed by the 1st defendant was adopted by defendants 2 to 7. the case of the 1st defendant was that the properties shown in the suit schedule were his self acquired properties and were not amenable to partition. The 1st defendant also stated that one of the properties had been purchased by him along with the daughter-in-law of his uncle and

3 RRR,J.

the said daughter-in-law had relinquished her share in favour of the 1st defendant by receiving necessary consideration.

8. After trial and after hearing the submissions on all sides, the trial Court passed a preliminary decree ordering partition of the plaint schedule properties into 12 equal shares with the plaintiff being given one share out of the 12 equal shares. Defendants 3 and 5 and 7 were also declared to have one share. The 2nd defendant being entitled to 4 shares and the 8th defendant being entitled to 3 shares.

9. Aggrieved by this preliminary decree dated 17.12.2017, defendants 2 to 7 moved A.S.No.34 of 2017 before the IX Additional District Judge, Kovvur. This appeal was dismissed on 18.01.2023. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, defendants 3 and 6 have moved this Court by way of the present second appeal.

10. The defence raised before the trial Court and the appellate Court were that the suit schedule property was the self acquired property of the 1st defendant; the 1st defendant, during his life time, had settled northern half of item No.4 and Item N