C. Praveen Kumar - (1.) Assailing the order dated 30.01.2017, passed in I.A.No.554 of 2016 in O.S.No.172 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, wherein an application filed Under Order XXIII Rule 1 and Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the suit was rejected, the present revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The facts in issue are as under: The petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S.No.172 of 2006 seeking division of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares with metes and bunds by taking into consideration the good and bad qualities and to allot one such share to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the only daughter of defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the brothers and the suit schedule property originally belonged to one R.Jayarami Reddy, who is the father of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The marriage of the plaintiff was performed in the year 1995 and at the time of marriage, no dowry or property was given to the plaintiff since the plaintiff is the only daughter of defendant No.1 and she would be entitled to the entire share. It is stated that defendant No.1, being kartha of joint family property mismanaged the family properties in order to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiff and is making hectic efforts to alienate the entire ancestral property and joint family properties. It is also stated that defendant Nos.1 and 2 entered into an agreement of sale with defendant No.3 without consent and knowledge of the plaintiff, hence, filed the suit for partition.
(3.) Written Statement came to be filed by defendant No.1 opposing the same. It is stated in the written statement that defendant No.2 had acquired most of the properties with his own earnings and hardship and that they never purchased any property from and the income of their father. Out of affection and on the advice of elders and relatives of both the parties, defendant No.2 allotted some properties to defendant No.1. After the death of their father, an amicable partition took place in between defendant Nos.1 and 2 and their mother, pursuant to which a registered partition deed was also executed and they are enjoying their respective shares exclusively with absolute rights. It is said that the plaintiff filed the present suit at the instigation of the husband of the plaintiff, with a view to extract money from them.;