THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL NO.982 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: One Chinta Palla Reddy and his wife Suryakantham have three sons namely Nagireddy, Ramalingeswara Reddy and Satyanarayana Reddy. Nagireddy predeceased his father. After his death, under registered partition deed dated 18.05.1992, the ancestral property was divided among the father and three sons, giving the share of Nagireddy to his wife Anantha Lakshmi and two sons. An extent of Ac.0.13 ¾ cents, where there is poultry shed, was not divided. Under a kararunama, it was agreed that all the members of the joint family would have a share therein. Alleging that defendants 2 and 3 sold away their share to the first defendant, the wife and two sons of late Nagireddy instituted O.S.No.135 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, for partition. The suit was opposed by the first defendant (His written statement was adopted by defendants 2 and 3). He contended that as per the kararunama, the suit schedule property is indivisible and therefore, right to partition cannot be claimed. The suit went to trial. Plaintiffs examined two witnesses and marked 14 documents. Defendants examined two witnesses and no documents were marked. Considering the evidence, the trial Court ordered the division of property into four equal shares by metes and bounds and, allotment of 1/16th share in the 1/4th share to the plaintiffs. The mother of late Nagireddy was also given 1/4th share in the property of late Nagireddy. Being aggrieved by that portion of the decree allotting a share to the mother of late Nagireddy (fifth defendant), the plaintiffs filed A.S.No.35 of 2009. The first appellate Court namely, Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, having regard to the principle that the mother would also be entitled to a share in the property of her son, allowed the appeal directing the division of property into 16 equal shares. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 were declared to be entitled to 1/16th share each and defendants 1 to 3 were allotted 4/16th share each. The fifth defendant was given 1/16th share. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is filed. The counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the first appellate Court was in error in allotting 1/16th share to the fifth defendant, the mother of late Nagireddy, who is a predecessor of the title. The submission is wholly misconceived. As per Section 8 read with Schedule-1 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, mother is a Class-I heir entitled to a share in the property of the predeceased son. The Second Appeal is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 18th October 2011 RRB