The joint family property principles affirmed the entitlement of daughters to equal shares alongside sons, despite claims of self-acquisition by the father regarding the property in question.

JUDGMENT

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short „the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellant/defendant No.1 challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 04.04.2003, in O.S.No.34 of 1999 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Tirupati [for short „the trial Court’]. The Respondents herein are the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the said Suit.

2. The appellant herein is the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.34 of 1999, on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. Originally, a suit in O.S.No.664 of 1994 was filed on the file of the I Additional District Munsiff Court at Tirupati and the same was transferred to the Additional Senior Civil Judge Court at Tirupati and numbered as O.S.No.46 of 1996. Later, the said suit was transferred to the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, and numbered as O.S.No.34 of 1999. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the plaintiffs, and the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.34 of 1999.

3. Originally, the respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs herein filed the suit in O.S.No.34 of 1999 against her parents-in-law and brother-in-law of the plaintiff No.1 for partition of plaint „A‟ Schedule property into three equal shares and to allot one such share to them and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint „B‟ schedule property, which is part and parcel of plaint „A‟ schedule property or in the alternative to direct the defendant No.1 to pay maintenance at Rs.1,000/- per month each to the plaintiffs and also to provide sufficient accommodation in the plaint „A‟ schedule house for their living preferably plaint „B‟ schedule property.

4. Both parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

5. The case of the respondent No.1/plaintiff (daughter-in-law) in brief, is as follows:

The plaintiff pleaded that the plaint „A‟ schedule property was originally acquired by her father-in-law and that he constructed the plaint „A‟ schedule house therein. She further pleaded that though her father-in-law acquired the plaint „A‟ schedule property, he threw it in the common hotchpot even prior to celebrating the marriage of his eldest son with the plaintiff No.1, and that the plaint schedule property became the joint family property long back, and the said property is being enjoyed by all the joint family members consisting of the plaintiff‟s father-in-law and his two sons, namely, her husband Vijayarama Naidu and Vijaya Bhaskar, who is the defendant No.3. The plaintiff further pleaded that her husband, along with other family members, have been living in plaint „B‟ schedule property, and ever since the date of her marriage with Vijayarama Naidu, her father-in-law used to collect rent of Rs.900/- from the tenant of the northern portion of the plaint „A‟ schedule property till the plaintiff‟s father-in-law retired as DCTO.

The plaintiff No.1 further pleaded that after the retirement, her father-in- law got the tenant vacated from the northern portion of the plaint „A‟ schedule property on 01.06.1993, and occupied the same; since then, he has been residing in the northern portion. The plaintiff further pleaded that her husband, wh