A partition suit regarding alleged joint family property must be dismissed if the plaintiff fails to plead and prove the existence of a coparcenary nucleus or if necessary parties in possession of the property are not impleaded, particularly when properties are shown to be self-acquired.

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellants/Defendant Nos.1 and 2 challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 01.03.2000, in O.S.No.100 of 1983 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalli, [for short 'the trial Court’].

2. The appellants herein are the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs and the respondent Nos.3 to 19 herein are the defendant Nos.3 to 19 in O.S.No.100 of 1983 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalli.

During the pendency of the appeal the appellant No.2 died and the appellant No.3 was brought on record as legal representative of the deceased appellant No.2. The appellant No.1 also died during the pendency of the appeal and the appellant Nos.4 and 5 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased appellant No.1.

During the pendency of the appeal the respondent No.4 died and the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are already on record along with respondent Nos.22 to 26 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.4. Subsequently, the respondent No.5 died and the respondent Nos.20 to 21 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.5. Thereafter, the respondent Nos.7 and 17 also died and the respondent Nos.27 to 29 and the respondent Nos.30 to 34 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased respondent Nos.7 and 17.

3. Originally, the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs herein filed the suit in O.S.No.100 of 1983 against defendant Nos.1 to 19, seeking for partition of the schedule properties into two equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiffs.

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

5. The case of the respondent Nos.1 & 2/plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 as per the plaint averments in O.S.No.100 of 1983, in brief, is as follows:

The plaint schedule properties are joint and ancestral properties of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the defendant Nos.4 and 5. The plaintiff and the defendant No.5 are the sons of the defendant No.4 and each of them are entitled to 1/4^th share in the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant No.4 has five more daughters and he started living with a profligate life and wayward life, since five or six years and totally neglected to maintain joint family consisting of the plaintiffs and their sisters, brother and mother. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant No.4 addicted to bad habits such as, gambling, womanizing etc., and failed to realize his obligation as dutiful father. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant No.4 is weak minded and is capable of being influenced and by taking advantage of the same, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 seem to have influenced the defendant No.4 to create a nominal and spurious documents in respect of the schedule property in order to defeat the legal and valuable rights of the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have no right to do so.

The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant No.4 had no legal necessities to part with the schedule property and the plaintiffs and the other members of the family have not derived any benefit under those transactions. The plaintiffs further pleaded that since the defendants did not co-operate with the plaintiffs for division and partition of the plaint schedule property, they got issued a legal notice on 26.08.1981, which was duly acknowledged by the defendants and no reply was sent virtually by admitting the contents therein and as such the plaintiffs are constrained to file the present suit.

The plaintiffs pleaded that since the defendant No.5 has also not co-operated with the plaintiffs in filing the suit, he was formally impleaded as party to the suit and the defendant No.5 is also a necessary party to the suit.

6. The case of the de