JUDGEMENT

The parties and the subject matter of the property involved in both these Second Appeals are one and the same and hence, they are being heard together and disposed of by common judgment.

2. Second Appeal No.393 of 2023 is filed questioning the judgment and decree, dated 13.02.2023, passed by Principal District Judge, Rajanna Sircilla in AS.No.6 of 2018, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla in O.S.No.50 of 2007, which was filed seeking partition of the suit schedule properties, was confirmed.

3. Second Appeal No.395 of 2023 is filed questioning the judgment and decree, dated 13.02.2023, passed by Principal District Judge, Rajanna Sircilla in AS.No.7 of 2018, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla in O.S.No.23 of 2010, which was filed seeking the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties, was confirmed.

4. The brief facts of the case, shorn off unnecessary details, which led to filing of Second Appeal No.393 of 2023, are that the plaintiff is the natural daughter of defendant No.1 through Late Varala Ramulu. Defendant No.2 is adopted son of defendant No.1. Late Varala Ramulu acquired the suit schedule property during his life time and enjoyed the same with absolute rights.

4.1. It was averred that the father of the plaintiff by name Varala Ramulu died in year 1971, without any male issues, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as his legal heirs to succeed the suit schedule property.

4.2. It was further averred that the at the time of marriage of the plaintiff in the year 1968, during the life time of Varala Ramulu, no money or articles were given and the plaintiff's father promised that he would divide the suit schedule property into two parts and bequeath half share to the plaintiff. After the death of Varala Ramulu, the said property has become joint family property. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are having half share each in the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 used to manage the suit schedule property as the plaintiff is residing at Hyderabad.

4.3. After death of plaintiff's father, the defendant No.1 took defendant No.2 in adoption in the year 1978, performed his marriage and he was blessed with three daughters. The plaintiff’s request to defendant No.1 to settle the property was postponed on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff used to visit Vemulawada frequently to look after the welfare of defendant No.1, who became old and was suffering from ill health and the plaintiff regularly provided medical treatment to her.

4.4. It was further averred that since the plaintiff did not agree for marriage alliance to her son, the defendants bore grudge against her and threatened that defendant No.1 would not settle the property in favour of plaintiff. While so, on 10.06.2007, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant No.1 for partition of the suit property, but defendant No.1 gave a reply by attributing baseless allegations and claimed that she was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 is making efforts to transfer the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2. Hence, the suit for partition of the suit schedule properties.

5. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed common written statement denying the averments of the plaint and further contended that Late Varala Ramulu and defendant No.1 took defendant No.2 in adoption in the year 1966 by following the caste and customary rites, but defendant No.1 executed a registered adoption deed on 16.12.1978, i.e., after the demise of Varala Ramulu. 5.1. It was further contended that after the death of Varala Ramulu, defendant No.1 purchased the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.210/- from its original owner