L. Narasimha Reddy, J.@mdashThese two appeals and one cross-objection therein are between the same parties and accordingly they are disposed of through a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to, as arrayed in A.S. No. 806 of 1997. One Madhavaram Venkaiah held about three residential houses in Kukatpally Revenue Village, Ranga Reddy District, and fairly large extent of agricultural land in that village. His wife is Laxmamma, the 3rd respondent herein. They had a son, Kishan Rao, the appellant herein, and daughter, Savitri, who is since dead, and is represented by her daughter, Shashikala, and son, Ramchandra Rao, respondents 1 and 2, herein.
2. During her lifetime, Savitri, and her children, respondents 1 and 2 herein, filed O.S. No. 402 of 1987 in the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit ''A'' and ''B'' schedule properties. She pleaded that the properties are ancestral in nature and her father died on 16-04-1989. Apart from claiming 1/3rd share in the ancestral properties, she has also demanded for a share in the properties, that would have fallen to the share of her father, in ''A'' and ''B'' schedule properties. She rested her claim upon the provisions of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act (for short ''the Amendment Act''). According to her, the appellant herein did not effect partition, in spite of repeated demands.
3. The suit was mainly contested by the appellant. According to him, there was a larger joint family, comprising of his grand-father Venkat Kistaiah, his father, Venkaiah and uncles Ramulu and Narsimlu, and in a partition that took place in the year 1956, himself and his father were given one share, and that his sister does not have any right over the same. His further plea was that at the time of marriage of Savitri, adequate properties in the form of gold and other ornaments were given and even under the Amendment Act, she is not entitled for any share, as her marriage was performed, by the time the amendment came into force.
4. Through its judgment dated 17-04-1997, the trial Court passed a preliminary decree, directing that the 1st plaintiff i.e. Savitri is entitled to 1/6th share in the ''B'' schedule properties, defendant No. 1, i.e. the appellant is entitled to 2/3rd share in ''A'' and ''B'' schedule properties, and that defendant No. 2 i.e. mother of the appellant is entitled 1/6th share in suit ''B'' schedule properties. In other words, Savitri was denied any share in the ''A'' schedule properties. Feeling aggrieved by the preliminary decree, the appellant filed A.S. No. 806 of 1997. Respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, filed cross-objections, claiming 1/3rd share in suit ''A'' and ''B'' schedule properties.
5. Some of the items of the land held by Venkaiah were acquired by the Government. In the context of payment of compensation, reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad, came to be taken up as, O.P. No. 948 of 1998 by the Court of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The same pattern of sharing as decided in O.S. No. 402 of 1987 was directed in the OP also. The appellant filed A.S. No. 3550 of 2003, challenging the decree passed therein. The other respondents in the appeal are purchasers of some of the properties, and there is no contest by them.
6. Heard Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, leaned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.
7. Respondents 1 and 2, and their mother, Savitri, filed suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The contest to the suit was only by the appellant herein. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of properties as prayed for?
2. Whether the suit schedule properties are in possession of the plaintiff?
8. The father of respondents 1 and 2 herein, i.e. husband of Savitri, deposed as PW-1, and he filed Exs. A-1 to A-30. The appellant deposed as DW-1, and on his behalf Exs. B-1 to B-15 were filed. The trial Court recorded a finding to the effect that the properties left by late Venkaiah were ancestral in nature and in the notional partition, between himself and his son, the appellant herein, they would have got equal shares. It has also been observed that on the death of Venkaiah, his wife, son and daughter get equal shares in the property, that would have fallen to the share of Venkaiah, and accordingly a preliminary decree was passed, i.e. 1/6th share in the suit ''B'' schedule properties. No share was allotted to them in ''A'' schedule properties, comprising of houses.
9. In view of the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel, in the appeals and the cross-objections, we are of the view that the following points arise for consideration:
a) Whether the properties left by Venkaiah were ancestral, or his self-acquisition;
b) Whether the mother of respondents 1 and 2 i.e. Savitri (1st plaintiff) was entitled to any benefit under the Amendment Act;
c) Whether the apportionment of the compensation by the trial Court in O.P. No. 948 of 1998 is correct.
Points (a) & (b):
10. Venkaiah was one of the three sons of late Venkata Kistaiah. The joint family comprised of three sons and their father. Venkata Kistaiah held large extent of land, and the partition among them is said to have taken place in the year 1956. The family comprising of Venkaiah and his son was allotted 1/4th share. Though Savitri pleaded that most of the properties held by Venkaiah were his self-acquisition, the evidence on record did not support it. Even now, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 is not able to substantiate that contention. The inescapable conclusion is that ''A'' and ''B'' schedule properties left by late Venkaiah were ancestral in nature.
11. It is no doubt true that under the Amendment Act, the daughter in a Hindu family is also treated as coparcener. However, the benefit does not accrue to a daughter, in case she has been married, by the time the amendment came into force. It is not in dispute that Savitri was married by that time. ''A'' schedule properties comprised of dwelling houses. They will not be available for partition, at the instance of a daughter, even otherwise. The result is that, a notional partition has to be presumed before the death of Venkaiah, and in such a partition, Venkaiah and his son, the appellant, would get half share each. Thereby, the appellant becomes the exclusive owner of half of suit ''B'' schedule properties. The remaining half of the properties have to be divided among Class-I heirs of late Venkaiah. That way, his wife; the 3rd respondent; son, the appellant, and daughter, Savitri, would be entitled to 1/3rd share each. In the context of the entire ''B'' schedule properties, it would be 1/6th share each. The trial Court has applied this very principle and passed the preliminary decree. We are of the view that neither the appellant is entitled to deny the 1/6th share in plaint ''B'' schedule property to his sister, Savitri, nor the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to claim anything more.
Point (c):
12. This being the answer to points (a) and (b), point (c) deserves to be answered in consonance with the same.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals and cross-objections are dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions filed in the appeals shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
