THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.1515 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The plaintiffs in O.S.No.60 of 1996 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur are the appellants. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. The plaintiffs filed the suit for the relief of declaration to the effect that themselves and defendants 22 to 26 are the owners of plaint A-schedule property and for recovery of the same from defendants 1 to 21. Briefly stated, the facts pleaded by the plaintiffs are as under: One Mr.Rudraboyina Venkat Rayudu had two sons by name, Singaiah and Venkata Subbaiah and two daughters, by name Singamma and Subbamma. Singamma had two sons, by name Narasimham and Kotaiah and a daughter, by name Chenchamma. Venkata Subbaiah S/o.Venkata Rayudu married his niece Chenchamma. It is stated that Singaiah lived separately from the rest of the family and was being given one-third of the produce from the lands, whereas Venkata Rayudu, his son Venkata Subbaiah and daugher Singamma were living together. The plaintiffs are from the branch of Singamma. It was pleaded that during his lifetime, Venkata Rayudu conveyed his one-third share in the joint family properties in favour of his daughter Singamma. Venkata Subbaiah and Chenchamma died issueless. Kotaiah S/o.Singamma had a son, by name Raghavulu, the deceased-first plaintiff. Another son of Singamma, by name Narasimham married the daughter of Singaiah by name Venkamma @Ankamma. He is said to have died intestate. The plaintiffs claim that the suit schedule property had accrued to them by way of succession as well as through the transfer made by Venkata Rayudu in favour of Singamma on two separate occasions. The suit was opposed by defendants 1 to 21. Some of them filed written statements and some adopted the same. The trial Court dismissed the suit, through its judgment, dated 01.11.2003. The appellants/plaintiffs filed A.S.No.31 of 2003 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur. The appeal was dismissed on 27.05.2009. Hence, this second appeal. Heard Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration, on the basis of the pleadings before it: 1. whether the plaintiffs with D22 to D26 are entitled for declaration of their rights in respect of A schedule property which is part of B schedule property as claimed? 2. whether the defendants 1 to 21 are entitled for equal share with the plaintiffs in respect of all the property? 3. whether there was any partition by metes and bounds in respect of the A schedule property in the joint application of Bodi Raghavulu and M.Venkaiah by the M.R.O.? On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.18 were filed. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws. 1 to 8 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.8 were filed. Exs.X.1 to X.9 were also taken on record. On dismissal of the suit, the matter was carried in the appeal. The lower appellate Court framed one point for its consideration as to whether the appeal is maintainable and dismissed the appeal. This Court has simplified the facts to the extent possible. The relief is in respect of a relatively smaller extent. However, the parties are so many and their inter se relationship is a bit complicated. The claim is made partly on the basis of succession and partly on the basis of transfers. The common ancestor Venkata Rayudu had two sons and two daughters. The suit schedule property appears to have been purchased about a century ago. The arrangements that are pleaded by the parties are referable to more than half a century before the suit was filed. Venkata Rayudu and his sons were entitled to the properties of the joint family in three equal shares. The case of the plaintiffs is a bit vague. It was not stated that any partition has taken place. The averment pleaded is tentative in nature. One of the sons, Singaiah is said to have been living separately. It was projected as though the family Venkata Rayudu, one of his sons Subbaiah and one of his daughters Singamma were living as a unit, particularly in view of the fact that the daughter of Singamma by name Chenchamma married Venkata Subbaiah. Though the plaintiffs pleaded that Venkata Rayudu conveyed one-third of the joint family property in favour of Singamma, the document was not registered. Even according to the plaintiffs, the unregistered document was lost. It is not difficult to imagine the trustworthy nature of such transaction. Another plea raised is that one-third of the property was sold by Venkata Rayudu in favour of his daughter Singamma in the year 1915 marked as Ex.A.2. Even if that is true, either Singamma or her legal representatives may have at the most sought for partition. For one reason or the other, the parties did not take steps to assert their respective rights for decades together. The Branches have expanded and new relations emerged. The plaintiffs are not the direct lineal descendents of Venkat Rayudu and the source of title claimed by them is too shaky and they failed to establish their clear and absolute title vis-à-vis the property. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court have devoted much of their attention in dealing with the intricate facts and applied the correct principles of law. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Therefore, the second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 18.08.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Second Appeal No.1515 of 2010 Date: 18.08.2011 JSU