Ganugapanta Vikas vs Ganugapanta Gopala Krishna Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 8080 AP

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE : S.A.No.475 of 2022 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. Date ORDER OFFICE No. NOTE

28.10.2022 SRS,J S.A.No.475 of 2021 Plaintiff being the appellant filed the present second appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 22.04.2022 passed in A.S.No.128 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nellore, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 05.09.2019 passed in O.S.No.120 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovur.

Suit is filed by the plaintiff for passing of preliminary decree (a) by allotting 1/4th share of plaintiff and directing the defendants to deliver such share after dividing the same by metes and bounds taking into consideration of good and bad within the specified period and if they fail to do so, the same may be done by appointing advocate / commissioner for the said purpose by passing final decree on separate application; (b) directing the defendants to pay the sum ascertained towards mesne profits from out of his half share out of the plaint schedule property on separate application and for the costs of the suit.

The trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred A.S.No.128 of 2019 and the same was partly allowed and preliminary decree was passed for partition of B-schedule in Ex.B-1 registered partition deed schedule property which is corresponding to some of the item numbers in the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and he is at liberty to file separate application for mesne profits. Therefore, the present Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff.

Heard.

ADMIT.

The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration.

1) Whether the Court below is right in observing that the plaintiff cannot claim any share over other items of plaint schedule property without adding the daughters of 1st defendant as parties to the suit without considering the contention of the plaintiff that the daughters were already given sufficient properties at the time of their marriage?

2) Whether the collusive partition deed excluding one of the coparcener subsequent to the notice demanding partition is binding on the said coparcener (plaintiff)?

3) Whether the Court below is right in ignoring the evidence of D.W.2 in cross examination revealing that the contention of the said witness as pleaded in the affidavit that the property mentioned therein as self acquired properties is a false contention and that the documents in her name are only on account of being a member of the family but not as an absolute owner?

4) Whether the Courts below are right in ignoring the contention of the plaintiff that the marriages of the sisters of 2nd defendant were performed long ago and as such they are not proper and necessary parties to the suit?

______ SRS,J I.A.No.1 of 2022

Heard.

There shall be stay of passing of final decree alone and other proceedings shall go on pursuant to the decree and judgment dated 22.04.2022 in A.S.No.128 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Judge.

_________ SRS,J KA