JUDGMENT:

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.07.2000 in O.S.No.160 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), wherein and whereby the suit filed by respondent No.1 herein for partition and separate possession has been decreed granting 1/2nd share to plaintiff and 1/2nd share to defendant No.1 therein. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is at the instance of defendant Nos.1 to 3 therein.

2. The appellants herein are defendant Nos.1 to 3, respondent No.1 herein is plaintiff and respondent No.2 herein is defendant No.4 before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred herein as they were arrayed in the suit.

3. The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiff is that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are her grandparents and defendant No.3 is her maternal aunt. Defendant No.4 is the purchaser of the part of the suit schedule properties. The father of plaintiff one Venkat Ram Reddy died leaving her as sole legal heir and successor. Defendant No.1 and father of the plaintiff constitute coparcenary and the coparcenary owns the suit schedule properties. Such properties are ancestral properties and after death of father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled for the share of deceased coparcener. Hence, she filed the present suit.

4. It is the case of defendant Nos.1 to 3 that the plaintiff has no rights over the suit schedule properties. The father of plaintiff divorced her mother and at the time of divorce monetary settlements were done and maintenance was granted. Hence, she is not entitled for any share in the suit schedule properties. It is also claimed that defendant No.1 has gifted part of the suit schedule properties to defendant No.3 towards ‘pasupu kumkuma’ at the time of her marriage. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:

“1. Whether the plaintiff’s father died as undivided member of Hindu Joint Family. If so whether himself and D1 constituted Hindu Undivided family?

2. Whether the suit properties are the ancestral properties of the alleged joint family?

3. Whether as contended in the written statement of D1,

the plaintiff was paid maintenance till the attainment

of majority and an amount of Rs.12,000/- towards her

marriage expenses?

4. Whether the suit properties are liable for partition?

5. Whether D1 is liable to render accounts?

6. Whether the Court Fee paid is sufficient?

7. To what relief?”

6. The plaintiff in support of her case got examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. In support of their case, defendants got examined D.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-20.

7. The trial Court accepting the case of the plaintiff decreed the suit granting 1/2nd share to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed at the instance of defendant Nos.1 to 3.

8. Heard.

9. In view of the above, the following point emerges for consideration in the present appeal:

“ Whether the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties/coparcenary properties of defendant No.1 and his deceased son and whether such properties are available for partition?”

Point:-

10. A reading of the pleadings of defendant Nos.1 to 3 shows that there is no specific pleadings claiming that the suit schedule properties are self-acquisitions of defendant No.1. When the suit schedule properties are not self-acquisition inference is that the case set up by plaintiff must be true. The plaintiff set up the case that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of defendant No.1 and his deceased son, who constitute coparcenary.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 contended that the pleadings of the plaint are vague. At one stage, the plaintiff pleaded that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties. At other stage, she pleaded that the suit schedule proper