THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.289 of 1999 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the sister of respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of respondent No.1. The appellant filed O.S.No.190 of 1990 in the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Srikalahasthi against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property in an extent of Acs.2.00 of agricultural land. She pleaded that the said property was given to her by her brothers including respondent No.1 as pasupukumkuma at the time of her marriage in the year 1977 and that the Kartha of the family, her elder brother by name K.Veeraswamy Mudali, executed a gift settlement deed on 03.12.1990, Ex.A2. She contends that the respondents started interfering with her possession over the property without any basis and prayed for the relief of perpetual injunction. The respondents filed a written statement. They pleaded that Ex.A1, a common letter, said to have been signed by all the brothers, giving the suit schedule property to the appellant by way of pasupukumkuma was brought into existence by P.W.2 and that P.W.2 has no authority to execute Ex.A2. The trial Court decreed the suit, through its judgment, dated 27.04.1995. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed A.S.No.5 of 1995 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi. The appeal was allowed on 10.12.1998. Hence, this second appeal. Sri M.P.Chandramouli, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that out of six brothers of the appellant, one of them, respondent No.1 and his sons started interfering with the possession denying the very settlement made in her favour as pasupukumkuma. He contends that the plea of the respondents was totally inconsistent. In case the family remained joint, they alone could not have raised any objection and on the other hand, if there is partition, they could have objected it, if only the property was allowed to the share of respondent No.1. He contends that the lower appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court on the basis of certain assumptions, which are contrary to the evidence on record. Though the respondents are served with notice, they have not chosen to enter appearance. The suit filed by the appellant was for the relief of injunction simplicitor. She based her claim over the suit schedule property initially on Ex.A1, a letter signed by her six brothers giving the property to her by way of pasupukumkuma and Ex.A2, a deed of settlement, dated 03.12.1990, executed by P.W.2, the eldest brother. Respondent No.1 filed the written statement opposing the suit. The trial Court framed only one issue for its consideration namely whether the plaintiff is entitled for the grant of permanent injunction as prayed for. The appellant deposed as P.W.1 and her elder brother K.Veeraswamy Mudali deposed as P.W.2. In addition to that, one Sri R.Anki Reddy, attestor of Ex.A2, was deposed as P.W.3. She marked Exs.A1 to A6. Out of them, Exs.A1 and A2 are in the way of sources of title and Exs.A3 to A6 speak about her possession and enjoyment. On behalf of the respondents, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B 16 were marked. The suit was decreed, but that was reversed by the lower appellate Court. The relationship between the parties is not disputed. The appellant claimed the suit schedule property on the basis of a settlement/gift made in her favour by way of pasupukumkuma. Out of her six brothers, one of them, respondent No.1 alone disputed the settlement made in favour of the appellant. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are his sons. Ex.A1 is a letter signed by all the six brothers proposing to gift the suit schedule property in favour of the appellant at the time of her marriage. The admissibility of that document becomes a bit doubtful, since it was not registered. At the same time, it can be relied upon to show that there existed common intention on the part of six brothers to gift the suit land to their sister, the appellant. The deficiency that existed vis-à-vis Ex.A1 stood rectified with Ex.A2, registered settlement deed. An important question of law arises for consideration in this in relation to the opposition made by respondent No.1 to the claim made by the appellant. It is this: in case the family was joint when Ex.A2 was executed, respondent No.1 does not have any right to oppose that except on the eve of partition. The only person who could have spoken to these aspects was respondent No.1 himself. However, he has not chosen to enter the witness box, obviously he would have found it difficult to answer these questions. At any rate, there existed voluminous evidence to substantiate the possession of the appellant over the suit schedule property. The respondents are not clear as to the nature of right, which they can be said to have derived from the joint family. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 do not have any independent right in themselves. They have to stand or fall vis-à-vis the claim of respondent No.1. Viewed from any angle, the judgment rendered by the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the second appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:29.07.2010 kdl