HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1031 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The appellant and the deceased 6th respondent filed O.S. No.260 of 1997 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddutur against the 1st respondent and the deceased 2nd respondent, their brother, for the relief of perpetual injunction and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The suit was dismissed on 28-07-2000. A.S. No.61 of 2002 filed in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddutur was dismissed on 23- 08-2005. This Second Appeal is filed by the 1st plaintiff in O.S. No.260 of 1997. The other plaintiff is said to be no more. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in the suit. The case presented in the plaint, in brief, is as under. 3. The plaintiffs are sisters of the 2nd defendant (Chenchi Reddy), Yella Reddy and Obul Reddy. Their father Yella Reddy (senior) died long back and the partition among the parties took place in the year 1957. One of the brothers Obul Reddy, father-in-law of 1st defendant, got himself separated in the year 1951 and he died even prior to Yella Reddy. Yella Reddy, another brother, died about 10 years prior to filing of the suit. He was bachelor. According to the plaintiffs, Yella Reddy died leaving behind him a house property and that themselves and the 2nd defendant are entitled for 1/3rd share each. It was alleged that the 2nd defendant executed sale deed dated 22-02-1989 (Ex.A-2) in respect of the said property, in favour of the 1st defendant with a view to deprive them the share in the suit schedule property. The suit was mainly contested by the 1st defendant. The suit and the appeal filed against it were dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The plaintiffs are spinsters. The dispute is in relation to the property said to have been left by one of the brothers of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant, by name Yella Reddy. The plea of the 1st defendant, who is the daughter-in-law of another brother, by name Obul Reddy is that late Yella Reddy was living with his brother i.e. 2nd defendant and after the death of said Yella Reddy, the 2nd defendant sold the suit schedule house under Ex.A-2 to her and an extent of Acs.12.00 of land was sold to her husband under Ex.B-1. She raised the grounds of limitation since the suit was filed seven years after the sale. 6. The trial Court framed the following two issues for its consideration: 1) Whether the suit schedule properties are self- acquired properties of Mopuri Yellareddy the brother of Plaintiff? 2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of suit properties as prayed for and for future mesne profits? 7. On behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs.1 and 2 were examined. Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the 1st defendant, DWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-23 were filed. The suit was decreed and on appeal, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal. 8. Basically, the suit for partition was not maintainable. The suit schedule property was not ancestral property of the parties. It was admittedly held by one of the brothers of the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant. It is not in dispute that the house property held by Yella Reddy was sold under Ex.A-2 and his landed property was sold under Ex.B-1. It may be true that the purchasers are his proximate relations. All the same, the occasion to partition of the properties did not arise unless the relief of declaration vis-à-vis was claimed. The plea raised by the 1st defendant that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs, at the instance of the 2nd defendant, stood buttressed on account of the 2nd defendant remaining exparte. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court have examined the matter from the correct perspective and no substantial question of law arose for consideration. 9. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J August 24, 2010. KTL