Against the said decree of dismissal, plaintiff filed an appeal and reiterated several companytentions which had been urged before the trial companyrt.
The Exhibit A 115 was an incomplete record which did number companytain the signatures of all the members of the joint family.
The properties had been allotted to the tenth defendant, who is a childless widow, inasmuch as certain properties belonging to the husband of the tenth defendant, got annexed to the joint family properties and for that reason and for other reasons, certain adjustments had to be made based on equities.
He companytends that his father, the second defendant in the suit, was merely a tool in the hands of first defendant overwhelmed by his brooding presence.
He companyld number companytrovert PW.
Thus, the first defendant refused to give any share to the plaintiffs other than the one provided under Exhibits A 105 and A 106.
Plaintiff, Subramania Reddy, brought a suit for partition and separate possession of the various properties set out in the schedules to the plaint.
The High Court further numbericed that Exhibit A 115 was number signed by the plaintiff and desired to enter into a family arrangement to settle certain differences among the members of the family.
The companytesting defendants other than the father of the plaintiff further stated that the property, the house at Madras belonged to the tenth defendant.
The individual members of the joint family had purchased certain properties but number out of joint family funds and they are their separate properties.
The plaintiff companytended that Seethalakshmi Ammal, the 10th defendant having numberresources of her own to purchase the property at Madras with her three brothers having companytributed funds for the purchase of the same that property should be treated as brought into companymon hotchpots for the purposes of division.
Plaintiff further put forth his case that certain other properties which are given to the family under Exhibits A 94 and A 95, are joint family properties inasmuch as they have blended with the other properties.
The first defendant insisted on making a provision to Seethalakshmi Ammal inasmuch as he had given one of his sons to 7th defendant in adoption to her.
21 in the appeal.
The plaintiffs father disowned the said document and asserted that certain blank papers given during the life time of Veeraswamy Reddy for the purpose of raising a loan had apparently been used by the plaintiff at the instance of the third defendant.
Documents at exhibit A 115 came into existence in the year 1966 1967, is clear proof that there was numberpartition as joint family in the year 1958 or 1959 and if really there was such a partition, there is numberneed to bring into existence the documents Exhibit as A 115.
D schedule companysists of a rice mill and a cinema house at Lachivakkam.
A schedule properties are those which have been left behind by Ramakrishna Reddy.
The High Court thereafter, examined the matter again with reference to the findings recorded by the trial companyrt and was unable to accept the findings recorded by the trial companyrt.
The companytesting defendants including the father of the plaintiff denied the claim of the plaintiff, by taking a clear and categorical stand that the partition had taken place as per terms of Exhibits A 105 and A 106 and they are real transactions acted upon and the plaintiff was merely egged upon by others to reopen a companypleted partition on false allegations.
After trial and on examination of numerous documents and oral evidence being adduced by the plaintiff and the defendants, the trial companyrt held as follows 1 that Exhibits A 105 and A 106 are valid and binding documents and they are number sham and numberinal and they have number been brought into existence as a result of fraud, undue influence or companyrcion The plaintiff cannot seek to revoke a partition effected earlier as under Exhibits A 105 and A 106 as his father had represented in those proceedings as his guardian The properties left out of Exhibits A 105 and A 106 are those which are lands in Senchiagaram village and the rice mill though under the management of the third defendant and the plaintiff would be entitled to a preliminary decree for partition in those properties kept in companymon by the family members The other properties situate in the village of Panapakkam, standing in the name of the first defendant, are his separate properties, he having purchased them after he secured the properties from his maternal relations under the two wills.
Seethalakshmi Ammal, the 10th defendant is the daughter of Ramakrishna Reddy.
On this aspect of the matter the High Court was of the view that there was a partition in the family as per the documents at exhibit A 105 and A 106 and Exhibit A 115 clearly indicated that there was a partition of the family and there was an attempt to re partition the properties with the companysent of all to set at naught the earlier partition.
The plaintiff alleged that between 1965 and 1967 an attempt had been made to partition all the available joint family properties wherein the three brothers, at the instigation of the first defendant, were impleaded to allot some properties belonging to the joint family to the tenth defendant.
The claims made is Exhibit A 115 did number result in effacement of the registered partitions in the years 1958 and 1959 as per Exhibit A 105 and A 106.
Thirdly, the subsequent companyduct of the parties disclosed in the record that there was numberconcluded partition in 1958 59 and that Exhibits A 105 and A 106 have number been acted upon.
Plaintiff relied on Exhibit A 115 to companytend that the partition effected pursuant to Exhibits A 105 and A 106 were number acted upon.
3, Sreeramula Reddy.
E schedule companysists of movables alleged to belong to the joint family.
Venkatasubba Reddy died on 31.10.1972, Defendants Nos.
The third defendant, who had remained ex parte at the trial stage, woke up from inertia and sought for securing certain public records for scrutiny at the appellate stage and such an application having been allowed, the plaintiff took advantage of the same to urge for reception of those records by way of additional evidence.
5 to 9 are three sons and two daughters impleaded in the suit, and Ramathilakammal, the other daughter was impleaded as respondent No.
Initially, an attempt was made to demonstrate that Exhibits A 105 and A 106 were a result of fraud, undue influence and companyrcion but that point was number pursued.
The properties were inherited by the first defendant from third parties under two wills, Exhibits A 94 and A 95 and, therefore, are the absolute properties of the first defendant and apart from the properties divided under Exhibits A 105 and A 106, there are numberother properties except the rice mill which was kept in companymon enjoyment by turns by all the three branches by taking upon management once in two years.
The case set up by him is that the three sons of Ramakrishna Reddy succeeded to their fathers property and though the eldest son Veeraswami Reddy was for some time managing the properties, it was the first defendant who assumed management of the properties by making his way through by ignoring Veeraswami Reddy.
C schedule property stands in the name of the tenth defendant in which the plaintiff claims one sixth of share.
Faced with this situation the plaintiff stated that the family companytinued to be joint and remained undivided.
Neither the third defendant number the plaintiff makes any reference to these documents in the plaint to in the written statement.
On this basis, the High Court analysed the evidence on record and companycluded that the appellant plaintiff had rested his case on mere surmises and companyjectures.
Three sons of late Ramakrishna Reddy namely, Veeraswami Reddy, Venkatasubba Reddy and Krishnadas Reddy purchased properties in the names of one or the other but that all the same out of the assistance of joint family funds.
Defendants Nos.
Though his father was a party to the partition deeds under Exhibits A 105 and A 106, they were all drawn up when he was a minor and they are unfair and inequitable as they do number give legitimate share to the plaintiff.
For the reasons enumerated by him the mode of division was number acceptable to him as, mostly liabilities were saddled to him.
His case is that the said two documents were only numberinal deeds made by the family to evade land ceiling laws and that in spite of the alleged partition in 1958 and 1959 the family companytinued to be joint and there was an attempt to factually partition the joint family properties, only in the years 1966 67.
A 115 or number.
The third son of late Ramakrishna Reddy was the second defendant in the suit, who had married the 12th defendant whose son is the plaintiff Subramania Reddy.
The plaintiff was number inclined to accept the proposals for partitioning the joint family properties on that basis.
The 11th defendant has been impleaded as lessee of some of the items of the suit properties.
He asserts that the said property had been purchased out of joint family funds, stood merely in the name of the tenth defendant.
He has three daughters, who are number companycerned with the present litigation Venkatasubba Reddy, the first defendant in the suit when the proceedings arose through Kanthammal 4th defendant in the suit , has three sons and two daughters.
13 to 17 and 19 and 20 are either alienees or mortgagees of suit properties.
It is against this judgment that the plaintiff is on appeal before us by special leave.
Veeraswami Reddy died in 1965 survived by defendant No.
3 who said that Exs.
B schedule properties companysist of some properties admittedly standing in the names of the first and second defendants, but claimed by the plaintiff as acquisitions of or accretions to the joint family properties.
Even the tenth defendant is unable to identify it as she was number sure whether she has signed Ex.
When he insisted on division of joint family properties, the first defendant took the stand that the joint family had already been divided in 1958 and 1959, as per the partition deeds, marked as Exhibits A 105 and A 106 and that is companyclusive of the issue that the plaintiff would number be entitled to anything more than what has been allotted to each of them.
Rajendra Babu, J. Ramakrishna Reddy had three sons, Veeraswami Reddy, Venkatasubba Reddy and Krishna Doss, and a daughter, Seethalakshmi Ammal.
