- (1.) The Defendants in O.S. No. 95 of 1980 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Markapur are the Appellants herein.
(2.) The suit O.S. No. 95 of 1980 was filed by the Plaintiff claiming that his father Peda Govinda Reddy and the 1st Defendant are the brothers and the 2nd Defendant is the undivided son of the 1st Defendant. The family of Plaintiff's father Peda Govinda Reddy and the Defendants was joint. The father of the Plaintiff died in 1978 leaving the Plaintiff as his sole legal heir. The mother of the Plaintiff was one Mallamma, who died in 1951, and the Plaintiff was born in August, 1949. When a claim was made by the Plaintiff for partition of the properties during the life time of the father, a false reply was given by him and the 1st Defendant. Consequent on the death of the father of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is entitled for division of the suit schedule properties into two equal shares and allotment of one such share with profits.
(3.) The 1st Defendant filed a written statement and subsequently, he died and the legal representatives 3 to 6 were brought on record as per the order in I.A. No. 95 of 1982. The 1st Defendant filed a written statement mainly contending that the Plaintiff is not the son of Peda Govinda Reddy. The relationship between the 1st Defendant and the Peda Govinda Reddy is admitted. The fact that the Plaintiff was born to Mallamma was also disputed. Peda Govinda Reddy himself gave a reply when a claim for partition was made by the Plaintiff. The substance of the contention of the 1st Defendant is that Peda Govinda Reddy though married Mallamma, the eldest daughter of one K. Venkata Rami Reddy of Yellupally village, before she attained puberty, she did not join her husband and live with Peda Govinda Reddy, and she continued to live at her father's house. Later, she left her father's house and was leading an unchaste life. On enquiry, the 1st Defendant came to know that the Plaintiff is the child of one Chaluvadi Venkataiah and his wife Subbamma, who were Balija by caste and doing vegetable business at Markapur. Thereafter, they shifted to Ponnur. Further Mallamma's father Kankara Peda Venkata Rami Reddy has got four daughters through his 1st wife Achamma viz., Rosamma, Laxmamma, Salamma and Parvathamma and two other daughters through his 2nd wife Venkatarangamma, he gave all his properties to the other daughters except Mallamma, for the reason she was leading an unchaste life. There have been disputes between the Defendants and Roshamma, the sister of Mallamma. The Plaintiff has been set up by her. The schedules shown in the plaint are not correct. It was further pleaded that during his life time Peda Govinda Reddy has taken the 3rd son of the 2nd Defendant, who is subsequently added as a 7th Defendant, in adoption on 15.08.1974 and also executed a Will on 01.11.1978 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing his properties to him. The Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to the rights in the property. The other Defendants subsequently came on record as purchasers of the properties and filed separate written statements. The 10th Defendant claimed to have purchased item No. 6 of the plaint A-schedule for valuable consideration under registered sale deed dated 16.05.1983 from Defendants Nos. 2 and 7. The 11th Defendant claimed to have purchased item No. 2 of plaint A-schedule for a valuation consideration under a registered sale deed dated 04.06.1984 from Defendants Nos. 2 and 7. The 12th Defendant claimed that he was unnecessarily added as a party to the proceedings. The 13th Defendant claimed that his wife has purchased item No. 10 of the plaint A-schedule property to an extent of 98 cents and the remaining 98 cents was purchased by the son of the 16th Defendant. Defendant No. 14 claims to have purchased item No. 9 from Defendants Nos. 2 and 7 in 1983. Defendant No. 16 claims to have purchased item No. 30 of the plaint A-schedule in 1979. Defendant No. 17 claims to have purchased item No. 29 of the A-schedule Defendant No. 18 claimed to purchase of item No. 9 of B-schedule, and 19th Defendant claimed to purchase of item No. 26 of plaint A-schedule. Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 adopted the written statement of 1st Defendant. Defendant No. 9 has adopted the written statement of 18th Defendant.;