JUDGEMENT

This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 03.06.2002 in O.S.No.25 of 1998 passed by the learned I – Additional District Judge, Warangal.

2. The suit vide O.S.No.25 of 1998 was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs against the appellants herein for preliminary decree. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides decreed the suit in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, defendants in the suit preferred the present appeal.

3. P.Ws.1 to 5 are examined on behalf of plaintiffs and D.Ws.1 to 4 are examined on behalf of defendants. Exs.A1 to A39 are marked on behalf of plaintiffs and Exs.B1 to B401 are marked on behalf of defendants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended the trial Court misconstrued the pleadings and oral evidence.

The procedure and manner in which the trail Court disposed of the suit would show that the trial Court constructed the words ‘Joint Family’ and ‘Joint Family Property’ is improper.

Plaintiffs are unable to prove A and B suit schedule properties as Joint Family Properties and their entitlement to seek partition as well as the adjudication with regard to other issues automatically falls to ground. There is no discussion of any decision on issue No.1 as well as additional issue no.1 which were most crucial to be decided first by the trial Court.

The trial Court ignored the specific admissions of P.W.1 in the chief examination. The properties in Sy.Nos.24, 26 and 465 were Rajamma’s self acquired properties and during her life time she disposed of some of the properties and the balance of her properties were inherited jointly by the father of the 1st defendant along with his brother Raja Reddy.

5. Learned counsel for appellants further contended that the trial Court failed to notice the items No.2 and 3 of Plaint ‘A’ Schedule do not stand in the name of defendant No.1 or his father and in the revenue records, they are continued to be shown in the name of their parents. The father of defendant No.1 and also his brother Raja Reddy jointly purchased the said lands and defendant No.1, his brothers and sister as well as children of Raja Reddy succeeded to those properties, but they cannot be described as joint family properties. Thus, there was neither any joint family property nor joint family nucleus and further contended that the finding of the trial Court regarding ‘B’ Schedule Property is correct, but regarding the ‘A’ schedule property, it is unsatisfactory. The decree with regard to item No.1-A of schedule is not sustainable under Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act. He also contended that the mere entries in pahanies cannot be decisive of the nature of the property to whether it is a joint family property or otherwise. The trial Court ignored the Land Ceiling declarations in respect of all the brothers of defendant No.1 and notional partition was assumed by the Land Ceiling Authorities and based on such notional partition, declarations were finalized. The trial Court assumed the record of land ceiling proceedings as conclusive.

Regarding issue No.3 and 6, properties of Rajamma are no way traceable to her husband or the joint family. He further stated that an appeal vide A.S.No.2836 of 1996 was filed against O.S.No.13 and 1996 and the same was allowed. The compensation granted by the reference Court for enhancement of compensation is set aside. Therefore, requests this Court to allow the present appeal.

6. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

7. The primary contention of the appellant is that the judgment under appeal does not show any discussion or any decision on issue number one as well as additional issue number two which were most crucial to be first decided by the trial court.

Issue No-1: whether the plaint Schedule Properties are the joint family properties liable for partition?

Additional Issu