K VENKATARAMANA REDDY Vs. K VENKATARAMI REDDY
LAWS(APH)-1992-2-72
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on February 14,1992

KORRU VENKATARAMANA REDDY Appellant
VERSUS
K.VENKATARAMI REDDY Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BALAKISHEN DAS V. RAM NARAYAN SAHU [REFERRED TO]
UMATYORUPAGAM V. PALANARAYANA [REFERRED TO]
RUKHMABAI VS. LALA LAXMINARAYAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. GHAMANDI RAM DEAD [REFERRED TO]
KALYANI VS. NARAYANAN [REFERRED TO]
DARSHAN SINGH VS. SAMSHER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KANAMATHAREDDI KANNA REDDY VS. KANAMATHA REDDY VENKATA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
CHINNAPPAREDDIGARI PEDDA MUTHYLAREDDY VS. CHINNAPPAREDDIGARI VENKATAREDDY [REFERRED TO]
TEEJA DEVI VS. NORATMAL [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

AMBATI DURGAMMA VS. PERICHERLA JAGAPATHIRAJU [LAWS(APH)-2004-10-62] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Bhaskar Rao, J. - (1.)Plaintiffs are the appellants herein. Defendant-Respondents 2 to 4 are the sons of the 1st defendant while 5th and 6th defendant-respondent are the sons of 2nd and 4th defendants respectively. The 3rd defendant is the father of the plaintiffs.
(2.)The suit filed was for partition of the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and allotment of one-sixth share therein to the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs and defendants constitute a Joint Hindu Family. The main plea of the defendants was that pursuant to the agreement Ex.X-1, entered into by Defendant Nos.1 to 4 to refer the matter to arbitration for purposes of partitioning the properties between D-3 on one hand and D-1, D-2, and D-4 on the other Ex. B-1 award dt.5-6-70 was made and as per the said award the properties covered by 'A' and 'B' schedules to the written statement filed by the defendants were allotted to the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants as one unit and the 3rd defendant as other respectively and therefore the plaintiffs were only entitled to their share along with D-3 in the 'B' schedule properties. Accepting this claim of the defendants, the trial Court decreed the suit by alloting to the Plaintiffs 2/3rd share in the 'B' schedule properties appended to the written statement filed by the defendants and1 /6th share in the moveable properties noted in the inventory prepared by the Commissioner. Hence this appeal.
(3.)The main contention advanced by Mr. K.V. Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellants is that Ex.B-1 being a document not registered cannot be looked into not only for purpose of finding out which item of property was allotted to which party but also to prove the factum of partition in view of the bar imposed by Section 49 of the Registration Act and that Section 91 of the Evidence Act prohibits Jetting in any evidence to prove the contents of Ex.B-1. Therefore according to the learned counsel the Court below erred in upholding the share alloted to D-3 under Ex.B-1, viz., 'B' schedule properties appended to the written statement filed by the defendants and calls for interference by this court.
;


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