JUDGMENT:

The present appeal has been filed by the 1st defendant in O.S.No.22 of 1999, challenging the judgment and decree, dated 21.01.203 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet, Nalgonda District, whereby the said suit was decreed by granting a preliminary decree in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff herein for 12½ share in the plaint schedule properties and for separate possession and enjoyment of the respective share of respondent No.1/plaintiff.

2. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed in the suit for brevity and also for better understanding of the case.

3. Originally, the above suit was filed for partition and separate possession declaring that the plaintiff is entitled for 0.12½ paise share each in plaint schedule properties, and to appoint a Commissioner to divide the plaint schedule properties as per the preliminary decree, and to put the plaintiff in a separate possession and enjoyment of the said share out of the suit schedule properties.

4. The brief facts of the case are that, plaintiff’s husband i.e. late Sri Guravaiah, and the defendant No.2 are the sons of defendant No.1, defendant No.3 is the wife of defendant No.1 and mother of Guravaiah. The plaintiff’s husband died on 02.06.1997 as a member of Hindu joint family consisting of himself and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and the parties are governed by Hindu Mithakshara School of Hindu Law. Further, the marriage of the plaintiff was performed with Sri Guravaiah i.e., the elder son of defendant No.1, on 03.03.1995 at Kapugallu village, as per the customs prevailing in their community and also as per the Hindu customs, and after the marriage, the plaintiff and her husband lived at Chilkuru village. However, the plaintiff’s husband Sri Guravaiah expired due to chronic disease of AIDS, and it is averred by the plaintiff that at the time of her marriage with Guravaiah, her parents gave Rs.25,000/- cash, two tulas of gold and other household articles to the defendant Nos.1 to 3. The plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties and the parties to the suit are entitled for the respective shares, and that the plaintiff’s husband being elder son of defendant Nos.1 and 3, is entitled to 0.12½ paise and to the affect to show that said property is a joint family property, pahani patrika of Chilkur village for the year 1997-98 was filed along with the valuation and the ownership certificates.

5. Further, it is averred that after death of plaintiff’s husband, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are not looking after her welfare, and they are not distributing any benefits accrued out of the properties, and as such, the plaintiff demanded for partition of the joint family properties by metes and bounds, and the defendant Nos.1 to 4 refused for amicable partition and proposing to sell the joint family properties.

6. It is further stated by the plaintiff that, plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule lands are under ayakut of Nagarjuna Sagar and giving good yield and that the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are not providing any essential commodities to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff, after expiry of her husband, is leading her life miserably at the house of her parents, and the defendants are dodging the matter from many years and using all the benefits derived from the suit schedule properties.

7. It is also stated that plaintiff’s husband, late Guravaiah had self-acquired properties, in respect of which the defendant No.3 filed a suit for partition against the plaintiff and defendant No.1, and the said suit was numbered as O.S.No.155 of 1998 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kodad. However, the present suit schedule lands are the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiff’s husband along with defendant No.1 to 4, and though a final demand was made on 03.07.1999, the defendants refused to partition the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the present suit was filed seeking relief of partition of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule