Properties inherited from collateral relations are self-acquired and not coparcenary, thus plaintiffs cannot claim rights by birth in such properties.

JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal is filed by the appellants - appellants - plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2004 passed in A.S.No.28 of 1999 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.02.1999 passed in O.S.No.23 of 1997 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiffs, who were minors, represented by their natural mother, filed a suit for partition and separate possession claiming three-fourth share in the plaint schedule A & B properties situated at Pothireddypally, Hamlet of Rahimkhanpet Village of Atmakur Mandal, Nalgonda District. The parties to the suit were Hindus by religion and were governed by Mitakshara School of Law. It was averred that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 were the sons of defendant No.1. The suit properties were ancestral properties of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 was habituated to all vices and was neglecting to look after the welfare of the plaintiffs and was trying to dispose of the suit A and B schedule properties. The defendant No.1 was negotiating and making efforts to dispose of the suit properties to others. Hence, the plaintiffs demanded for partition and separate possession of their respective shares on 28.08.1990 and 03.09.1991. But the defendant No.1 paid deaf ear. The plaintiffs also stated that they filed a suit for partition and separate possession earlier vide O.S.No.254 of 1990 against the defendant No.1. But due to the intervention of elders, on the promise of defendant No.1 to provide a peaceful life to the plaintiffs and their mother Itha Rajeswari, the suit as well as M.C.No.6 of 1990 were not pressed on 13.11.1990. But the defendant No.1 failed to keep up his promise and again started to ill-treat the plaintiffs and their mother. Hence, having no other alternative filed the fresh suit.

3. The suit schedule "A" properties were shown as items 1 and 2, the agricultural dry lands to an extent of Ac.18-38 guntas in Survey No.417 of Pothireddypally Village and the agricultural wet lands to an extent of Ac.2-30 guntas in Survey No.420 of Pothireddypally Village was shown as item 3 of “A” schedule properties. The suit schedule "B" properties were a house plot admeasuring 182 square yards situated at Motkur, a tiled house, a huller and a current motor.

4. The defendant No.1 filed written statement admitting the relationship with the plaintiffs. However, contended that the suit schedule properties were not ancestral or joint family properties. Items 1 and 2 of plaint "A" schedule in Survey No.417 admeasuring Ac.18-35 guntas were the self-acquisition of the defendant's senior paternal uncle Itha Narayana having been purchased by him from one Kanala Venkat Ram Narsaiah. As Narayana died intestate without having class-I legal heirs, the said land devolved upon the defendant's father, as the sole heir of Narayana. Consequent upon the death of the defendant's father Somaiah, the said land devolved upon the defendant No.1 and his mother Sathemma as tenants in common under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Thus, the half share got by the defendant No.1 in the said land constitutes his self-acquisition and the plaintiffs had no right what so ever in the said land. Item No.3 of plaint "A" schedule was the self-acquired property of the defendant's father and consequent upon the death of his father, the same was devolved upon the defendant and his mother to be enjoyed by them as tenants in common. Item No.1 of plaint "B" schedule namely the house plot of 182 square yards forming part of Survey No.447 of Motkur village was the sthreedhana property of the defendant's mother Sathemma having been purchased by her. She sold the same to one B.Chakraiah in May, 1991. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant No.1 had got any right over the said house plot. Item No.2 of plaint "B" schedule, tiled house situated at Pothireddipally village was in the occupation of the d