RASALA SURYA PRAKASARAO Vs. RASALA VENKATESWARARAO
LAWS(APH)-1992-2-4
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on February 21,1992

RASALA SURYA PRAKASARAO Appellant
VERSUS
RASALA VENKATESWARARAO Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAGHAVENDRA RAO V. RAJESWARA RAO [REFERRED TO]
SIVAGNANA VADIVU NACHIAR V. KRISHNA KANTHAN [REFERRED TO]
RAJU V. ARUNAGIRI [REFERRED TO]
DORAI BABU V. GOPALAKRISHNA [REFERRED TO]
GUR NARAIN DAS VS. OUR TAHAL DAS [REFERRED TO]
SINGHAI AJIT KUMAR VS. UJAYAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMAMMA VS. NARASAMMA [REFERRED TO]
GOVERDHAN SINGH VS. HIRAMAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MAHILA MATHURO BAI VS. RAMWATI [REFERRED TO]
MARGABANDHU VS. KOTHANDARAMA MANDHIRI AND 0RS [REFERRED TO]
MARGABANDHU VS. KOTHANDARAMA MANDHIRI AND 0RS [REFERRED TO]
PERUMAL GOUNDER VS. PACHAYAPPAN [REFERRED TO]
HANMANTA LAXMAN THORAT VS. DHONDAVVABAI HANMANTA THORAT [REFERRED TO]
LAXMIBAI NAGAPPA MATIWADAR VS. LIMBABAI NAGAPPA MATIWADAR [REFERRED TO]
SHANTARAM TUKARAM PATIL VS. DAGUBAI TUKARAM PATIL [REFERRED TO]
P M A M VELLAIYAPPA CHETTY VS. NATARAJAN [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH ALIAS ASHOK NANA PATIL VS. NANA RAMA PATIL [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

G NIRMALAMMA VS. G SEETHAPATHI [LAWS(APH)-2000-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
NALLAGONDLA KANTHAMMA VS. NALLAGONDALA RAJYAM [LAWS(APH)-2003-9-70] [REFERRED TO]
VEMPATI ANASUYAMMA VS. GOURU VENKATESWARLOO [LAWS(APH)-2008-6-98] [REFERRED TO]
SAROJAMMA VS. NEELAMMA [LAWS(KAR)-2005-7-56] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAKUMARI THAMPURAN VS. PALACE ADMINISTRATION BOARD [LAWS(KER)-2006-8-58] [REFERRED TO]
GAYABAI SAKHARAM JAMBHULKAR VS. GOPAL SAKHARAM JAMBHULKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2008-2-139] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANI VS. ARAVINDAKSHAN [LAWS(KER)-2005-7-84] [REFERRED TO]
GORREPATI VIJAYA LAKSHMI AND ORS. VS. GORREPATI PRABHAKARA LAKSHMI AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2014-12-164] [REFERRED TO]
VASANT RAMCHANDRA ALIAS CHANDER VS. GURUDAS VASANTRAO YELVANDE [LAWS(BOM)-2018-4-108] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

D. J. Jagannadha Raju, J. - (1.)This second appeal has been referred to a division Bench as per order dated 26-7-1988 passed by our learned brother Justice G. Ramanujulu Naidu. The order of reference reads as follows :
"The question raised in the second appeal is whether the illegitimate children of a person can be equated with his natural sons and treated as coparceners for the purpose of claiming a share in their joint family property? In other words the scope of S. 16(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act as amended in 1976 falls for consideration. The question is one of general importance and in the absence of any decision of this court, an authoritative pronouncement on the question by a Division Bench of this court is desirable. I therefore refer this second appeal for decision by a Division Bench of this court. Place the papers before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate order."

(2.)Before we deal with the legal questions that arise for consideration in the second appeal, it would be just and proper to set out, in brief, the facts leading to the present second appeal.
(3.)The plaintiffs, the appellants in the second appeal filed a suit O. S. No. 105 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem for partition of the plaint schedule properties into six equal shares and allotment of one such share each to plaintiffs 1 and 2, defendants 1 to 3, and to allot the remaining 1/6th share equally among the plaintiffs and the four defendants. The plaintiffs claim that third plaintiff Rosamma and the fourth defendant Boosamma are the two wives of late Rasala Ramaiah and that Ramaiah married third plaintiff in 1951 and that the plaintiffs are the legitimate sons of Ramaiah born to third plaintiff. They claim that the marriage of their mother took place in 1951 at Bhadrachalam. D.1 to D.3 are the children of Ramaiah through D.4. They claim that as they are all members of a Hindu joint family, plaintiffs 1 and 2 are entitled to seek partition and they are entitled to equal share along with the defendants 1 and 2. it is claimed that plaintiffs are each entitled to a one-sixth share plus 1 /42nd share whereas the third plaintiff and fourth defendant, the widows of Ramaiah, are entitled to 1/42 nd share each. As defendants did not effect a partition in spite of demands, a registered notice was issued and then the suit for partition was filed.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.