The court affirmed that property inherited from a male ancestor is ancestral, granting the plaintiff a right by birth, and invalidated the 1st defendant's sale of the property without consent.

Judgment:

This Second Appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.69 of 2008 on the file of VII Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, dated 03.09.2011, confirming the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.926 of 2003 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dated 12.03.2008.

2. The appellants 1 and 2 herein are the defendants 2 and 3 and the 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff and 2nd respondent herein is the 1st defendant in the O.S.No.926 of 2003 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. It is to be noted here that the 2nd appellant died during the pendency of this appeal, as such, the appellants 3 to 5 are brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased 2nd appellant.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.926 of 2003 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, with a prayer for partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and for costs.

4. The learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, preliminarily decreed the suit by awarding one half share to the plaintiff. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants 2 and 3 in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned VII Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, dismissed the first appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants 2 and 3/appellants approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the 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.926 of 2003, is as follows:

(i) The suit was originally filed against defendants 1 and 2 on the ground that 1st defendant i.e., the father of the plaintiff got Ac.0-79 ½ cents of land as depicted in the plaint schedule in partition with his brothers consequent to the death of his father Thotakura Gopalam. Originally, the said Gopalam purchased Ac.5-00 cents of land under a registered sale deed, dated 27.05.1939 bearing Doc.No.1363 of 1939 and he was in possession and enjoyment of the said land till his death. He died intestate leaving 1st defendant and other five sons. In the family partition among the sons of Gopalam, the 1st defendant got Ac.0-79 ½ cents towards his share and as such, it has become ancestral property of the 1st defendant and the plaintiff. While so, the plaintiff could know the 1st defendant in a drunken state and unsound mind executed a document in favour of 2nd defendant without having right over the plaint schedule property and for no consideration.

(ii) The 3rd defendant i.e., wife of 2nd defendant was impleaded as a party to the suit proceedings and the plaint was amended by amending other pleadings that 1st defendant executed a registered sale deed, dated 16.03.1989 in the Sub-Registrar Office at Vijayawada in favour of 3rd defendant alienating the entire plaint schedule property and the plaintiff could know the said fact on 28.07.2005 and the said sale is invalid, plaintiff requested the 3rd defendant for partition of the plaint schedule property and defendants 1 and 3 did not cooperate and as such he got issued legal notice, dated 28.10.2003. The defendants received the said notice and kept quite.

7. The 1st defendant filed written statement denying the execution of sale deed in favour of the 3rd defendant much less the sale deed, dated 16.03.1989. He affirmed the averments of the plaint that the plaint schedule property is ancestral property and he is ready for partition of the plaint schedule property.

8. The 2nd defendant filed written statement by admitting the purchase of Ac.5-00 cents of land by T. Gopalam under a registered sale deed, dated 27.05.1939 and after his death, his sons including 1st defendant partitioned t