THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM S.A.No. 1338 of 2010 Dated 30-04-2011 Between: Nadipalli Chandra Rao …Appellant Vs. Nadipalli Atchiyamma and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM S.A.No. 1338 of 2010 Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31-05-2010 of the learned III-Additional District Judge, Kakinada, allowing A.S.No. 189 of 2006 and reversing the judgment and decree dated 05-09-2006 of the learned II-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, in O.S.No. 852 of 2002. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs and the appellant is the defendant in the suit. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit for the sake of convenience. The suit for partition was filed in respect of a thatched house bearing Door No.16-2-43 and the site in survey No.32/2 of Jaggammagaritota, Samalkot Municipality, East Godavari District, into two equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiffs. On the admitted factual scenario, the husband of the 1st plaintiff, who is the father of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 – Nadipalli Somaraju and his two brothers – the defendant and another Nadipalli Veerraju, are sons of Nadipalli Veeranna. The husband of the 1st plaintiff – Somaraju died long time back leaving the plaintiffs as legal heirs. Nadipalli Veeranna died intestate leaving behind his three sons. Admittedly, the petition schedule property and another belong to Veeranna, who along with his wife – M. Lakshmi Kantham purchased total extent of Ac.0-6 ½ cents of land on 15-04-1968. It is also the agreed case that in a partition of the property between Lakshmi Kantham and Veeranna, the plaint schedule property fell to the share of Veeranna. It is also the agreed position that Veerraju (the other property of the defendant and the 1st plaintiff’s husband) was allotted another property of Veeranna situated in Ward No. 16, near Jayalakshmi Talkies, Samalkot. The plaintiffs claim that the 1st plaintiff’s husband – Somaraju and the defendant were allotted the plaint schedule property by their father – Veeranna while he allotted the other property to the other son – Veerraju. While the defendant (appellant) does not specifically contest this position, it is his case that he was in continuous possession of the plaint schedule property since the death of his father – Veeranna; that the property was full of holes and bushes; that he has spent his own amount, got the land leveled, constructed a thatched house and was living there since a long. According to the defendant, he constructed the thatched house which is also assessed by the Samlkota Municipality. Further, according to the defendant, after the death of the father it is only he came into actual possession and got control over the plaint schedule property and further that the 1st plaintiff’s husband took some amount and disowned the schedule property, went away to another place and later died. The defendant also pleaded that the 1st plaintiff, after the death of his brother-- her husband, was living with one P. Govind elsewhere and is not in possession of the property. The trial Court dismissed the suit believing the relinquishment of his share of the plaint schedule property by the 1st plaintiff’s husband after obtaining some money in lieu thereof and that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the property and therefore are not entitled to partition. In the plaintiffs’ appeal, the lower appellate Court held that the property was the joint property of the 1st plaintiff’s deceased husband – Somaraju and the defendant; that the original owner and father-in-law of P.W.1—Nadipalli Veeranna had purchased the property as verified by the documentary evidence-Ex.A.3; that after Veeranna’s death intestate the two brothers – the defendant and husband of 1st plaintiff – Somaraju would inherit the property. The alternative claim of acquisition of title by the defendant by adverse possession and long possession for the statutorily prescribed period was disbelieved as there was no evidence in support thereof. The lower appellate Court rejected the defendant’s claim of the 1st plaintiff’s husband relinquishing his share of the property as there was no evidence in support of the said claim and further since the defendant did not even state in his oral testimony the date, time or place of such relinquishment; the amount apparently paid to the husband of the 1st plaintiff for the alleged relinquishment of his share in the suit schedule property; nor even the name of any other person or persons in whose presence the relinquishment was made. On a cogent and rational analysis of the evidence on record, the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the property was a joint property and is liable to partition between the parties. This Court finds no perversity in the appreciation of facts or any error in the application of law or substantial error of law warranting the second appellate interference. There are no merits in the second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 30-04-2011. Pvks