HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

A.S.No. 444 OF 2011

J U D G M E N T:

Against the judgment and decree dated 30-05-2022

in O.S.No. 22 of 2008 on the file of the Judge, Family Court- cum- Additional District Court at Mahabunagar, this Appeal is

filed.

2. Respondents in the Appeal are Plaintiffs in the mentioned suit. Relief sought in the said suit is partition and separate possession of 1/4^th share of plaint schedule 1 to 11

properties.

3. The parties in the present Appeal are being referred to as

arrayed in the suit.

4. Before the Court below, on behalf of Plaintiffs, two witnesses were examined i.e. PW-1, who is Plaintiff No. 1 and PW-2 who is Plaintiff No. 2 and Exs. A1 to 17 were marked. On behalf of defendants, Exs. B1 to B5 were marked, Defendant No. 1 was examined as DW-1 and Defendant No. 14 was examined as DW-2 and Defendant No. 2 was examined as DW-3 and three independent witnesses were examined as DW-4 – Mahabub Ali, DW-5-M. Ramulu

and DW-6-Bala Kistaiah.

5. The case of Plaintiffs is that, Late Bazaru Pedda Balaiah, Chinna Balaiah, Late Yenkappa and Chinna Venkappa are all sons of Late Bazaru Ramaiah and were the joint owners of Plaint Schedule Property. They all were having 1/4^th share in the family property. Defendant No.1 inherited 1/4^th share of

Pedda Balaiah, Defendant No. 2 to 12 inherited 1/4^th share of Chinna Balaiah, Plaintiffs 1 and 2 inherited 1/4th share of Late Yenkappa, Defendants 13 to 24 inherited 1/4th share of Late Bazaru Chinna Venkappa. Plaintiffs and Defendants are members of Hindu Undivided Family and there is no partition between Plaintiffs and Defendants of Suit Schedule Properties. Plaintiffs and Defendants 1 to 24 are members of Hindu Undivided family and have been in joint possession of suit property. So far, no partition took place between them. The family of both the parties grown up at large and now Plaintiffs do not like to live as members of undivided family. On 05-04-2008, Plaintiffs demanded partition of Suit Schedule Property and on being refused by the Defendants, they filed the subject suit.

6. It is the specific case of Defendants that status of Joint Family lapsed much prior to 1980 itself. Suit Schedule Properties are not Joint Family Properties and are not in joint possession between the parties. Partition was done to Joint Family Properties much prior to 1980. During the said partition, the father of Plaintiff was given equal extents in Suit Property and by selling the said properties, he performed the marriages of Plaintiffs. Revenue records show separate enjoyment and possession of Schedule Property independently among Defendants. Further, in 1986, a Memorandum of Understanding was reduced into writing by Defendants and the descendants of the common ancestors to the effect of partition. Earlier to filing of suit, Plaintiffs got issued a fake notice demanding partition and that a reply was issued by Defendants. Due to the said reply, Plaintiffs maintained silence. In the additional Written Statement filed by Defendant No.1, it is specifically contended that Suit Schedule Properties were partitioned in 1975 and 1976 and that suit lands are not in possession of Defendants as the properties were alienated to third parties. The shares of Plaintiff’s father were given in the shape of cash and gold and there was a subsequent partition that took place between successors of Late Pedda Balaiah and his brothers. It is also the contention of Defendants that Plaintiffs failed to implead the purchasers of Suit Properties.

6. The trial Court framed the following issues for trail.

1. Whether the Suit Schedule Properties are Joint Family Properties of Late Bazaru Pedda Balaiah, Late Chinna Balaiah, Late Yenkappa, Chinna Venkappa? If so, whether the Plaintiffs and Defendants who are legal heirs of the said four brothers are entitled to seek partition and separate possession of Suit Schedule Properties?

2. Whether Suit Schedule Properties were partitioned between the share holders long back as contende