THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.737 of 1993 Date: 09.12.2010 Between: Buddaraju Suryanarayana … Appellant And Buddaraju Subbaraju and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.737 of 1993 JUDGMENT : The 1st defendant in O.S.No.25 of 1988 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari District, is the appellant herein. 2. The suit was filed by his son for partition of the joint family properties and for profits. On considering the rival contentions of the parties, the lower Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff while accepting that certain of the items, as contended by the defendants, are not joint family properties. The plaintiff has not preferred any appeal questioning the rejection of part of his claim. The 1st defendant has filed this appeal not challenging the entire judgment or the partition of the properties. 3. The appellant herein does not dispute about the relationship and the joint family status. The only ground urged in preferring this appeal is that the lower Court should have allowed that the 2nd defendant was given in adoption when he was 4 years old and relinquished his share in favour of the appellant to be enjoyed exclusively and, therefore, the share of the 2nd defendant should have been allotted to the share of the appellant. Further more, it was also his grievance that the additional written statement with regard to the above plea was not allowed by the Court below. The appellant also disputed about the liability of some debts. 4. The points for consideration are— (1) Whether there is any valid contention to be entertained on behalf of the appellant, and (2) Whether the appellant can be permitted to raise the plea? In re. Point Nos.1 and 2 : 5. Evidently, when the 2nd defendant is said to have been given in adoption, he is a minor, therefore, the question of relinquishment of his share by his own act does not arise at all. There is no document to support such a relinquishment. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the appellant, even if it is to be true. The lower Court, therefore, has rightly did not entertain the amendment application. If the plea of the appellant is true, even during the final decree proceedings he can move an application along with the 2nd defendant for the relief claimed in this appeal. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of the lower Court. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J 09.12.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.737 of 1993 09.12.2010 (Msr)