The High Court · 2025

5. KomakulaLalithamma,sincedied.. ...Respondents/Respondents 6. Paka Sajjan Kumar S/o. Sri Eswaraiah, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Advocate' Rt/o.H.No.7-2-1 17, Mankamma Thota, Karimnagar, District

7. Mr.Bandari Venkataiah S/o. Sri Sailoo, aged about 58 years, Occ:retd.Employee, R/o.H.No.12-66, RK-6, Huts Area, Srirampur Colony, Singapur Grampanchayath, Mancherial District. S

8. Mr.Kamatam Mallesham S/o.Sri Pochamallu, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.7-12l1, Bommakal, Karimnagar District.

9. Gajjala Kantham S/o.Not known to petitioner, aged 45 years Occ:Politician R/o.H.No.4-7112, Near Ambedkar Statute, Pegadapalli Village and Mandal, Jagityal District ...Proposed Respondents Respondents 2 to 6 are not necessary parties in this petition For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent No.1 and 10 to 13 from alienating, creating third party interest or change or deal with the property more vividly described in the annexed petition, in any manner pending disposal of the AS No. 965 of 2008, and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY All that agricultural lands situated at Nagunoor Village of Karimngar Mandal Sl.No. Sv.No Extent Boundaries: 1 2 109/A '1.01 gts 135t4 137 3-24 gts 3-44 gts 3 812 1-1'1 gts East: Land of Babaiah West: Land of Jakkula Mondaiah North: Land of Penchala Pochamallu South: Land of Purumalla Rajaiah East Land of Vengaladas Narayana West: Way to Bommakal North: Peddapalli High Way South: Land of Guda Laxman Reddy & Komakula Venkataswamy East Land of Komakula Narayana West: Land of Guda Madhava Reddy North: Land of Purumalla Rajaiah & Venakata Ramulu South: Land of Gaju Satyanarayana /-l IA NO: 2 OF 2018

1. Komakula Veeraiah, S/o.Ramaswamy' aged about 70 years' Occ: Retired Teacher, R/o.Bommakal Village, Karimnagar District ...Petitioner/ResPondent No'1

2.Komakula Anjaneyulu (Died as per LRs 3 to 5

3. Komakula Vinoda, Wo.Late Komakula Anjaneyulu, Aged about 50 years, Occ Household, R/o. H.No.10-4 '-6613411, Bank Colony, Karimnagar'

4. Komakula Adithya, S/o. Late Komakula Anianeyulu, Aged about 35 years' R/o.H.No.10-4-66/34/1, Bank Colony, Karimnagar.

5. Komakula Anuhya, D/o. Late Komakula Anjaneyulu Aged about 32 years' Occ:Housewife R/o. H. No.10-4-6613411 , Bank Colony, Karimnagar' Respondents LR. petition ASMP.No.1 508/201 0 ..Petitioners/ProPosed And

1. Komakula Sathaiah, S/o.Ramaswamy, Aged about 77 years, Occ: Retired Singareni Employee, R/o.Bommakal Village, Karimnagar District. ....Respon denuAppellant

2. Nagaraj Kamala, Wo.satyanarayana, Aged about 76 years' Occ: Household' R/o. H. No.9-1-172 Near Mamatha Theatre, Bhagathnagat' Karimnagar'

3.TadagondaManemma,WoVittal,agedabout68years,Occ:Household' R/o.H.No.9-4-207, Sapthagiri Colony, Karimnagar.

4. Nagaraj Sarojana, Wo. Satyanarayana, Aged about 66 years' Occ: Household, Rl/o H.No.8-4-84, Ganeshnagar, Karimnagar'

5. KomakulaLalithamma,sincedied.. ...Respondents/Respondents 6. Paka Sajjan Kumar S/o. Sri Eswaraiah, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Advocate' R/o. H.No.7-2-1 17, Mankamma Thota, Karimnagar, District'

7. Mr.Bandari Venkataiah S/o Sri Sailoo, aged about 58 years' Occ:retd.Employee,Rl/o.H.No.12-66,RK-6,HutsArea.SrirampurColony' Singapur Grampanchayath, Mancherial District. S.Mr.KamatamMalleshamS/o.SriPochamallu,Agedabout39years,Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.7-12l1, Bommakal, Karimnagar District

9. Gajjala Kantham S/o.Not known to petitioner, aged 45 years Occ:Politician R/o. H. No.4-7112, Near Ambedkar Statute, Pegadapalli Village and Mandal, Jagityal District ...Proposed Respondents Respondents 2 to 6 are not necessary parties in this petition Petition under Order 1 Rule '10 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead 1) Mr. Paka Sajjan Kumar, 2) Mr.Bandari Venkataiah, 3) Mr.Kamatam Mallesham, 4) Gajjala Kantham as respondents No.1O to 13 in ASMPs,AS No. 965 of 2008, as well as connected lAs. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. Aarifa Imran Khan Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,7 to 9: Sri V Hari Haran Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 10 to 12: Sri M. W. R. Jayakar The Court delivered the following: HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA 1 JUDGMENT: A.S.No. 965 OF 2OO8 Challenging the judgrnent dismissing ().S. No.42 of 2OO6, dated 3l.O7.2OOa on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, thr: unsuccessfut plarntiff preferred this Appeal.

3. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the sttit The Undisputed Facts are: Plaintiff and Detendar:ts 1 and 2 are st>ns; Defendant Nos.3 to 5 are daughters ald Defendant No.6 is wife of one Komakula Ramaswarny, who died rntestate on 05.1 I 1998. Plaintiff was an cmplovee of Singareni Collieries, Mandamarri. Defcndant No.l is a teacher and Defendant No.2 is an Assistant Engrncer, Palchayat Raj, ald both of them are residing at Karimnagar. Marriages of DcfendalLs 3 to 5 were performed by ll. Ramaswamy during his lifetime. The case of plaintiff is that suit schedrrle properties are ancestral properties of their family and after the death of their father, his undivided share was also devolvi:d on himself and Defendants 1 and 2 and all of them constructecl houses with their own funds and are living separately. At the time of marriage of Defendants 3 to 5, their father gave land of Ac. O-4 gts in Survey No. l/E Dl, who is managing the suit lands, tried to scll some of the properties in collusion with Defendant No.2 to deprive ptaintiffs rights. When he approached them on

30.O4.2006, they denied for partitron of sr-tit schedule t' 2 :-:- "r properties. Hence, the suit for partition of suit schedule properties.

4. The 1* Defendant hled written statement stating that suit schedule properties are not a-ncestral properties of the family, but were acquired by their father. Defendants 3 to 5 were not given any land by their father at the rirne of their marriage equa-lty. Defendant No. I was given Ac. O-Ollz g!s; plaintiff and Defendant No.2 were given old house with equal sha-res. By demolishing the old house, plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 constructed their houses separately and plaintiff constructed a housc in the land given to him. Since the date of partition, they are in possession and malagement of their respective allotted lands. Defendant No.1 used to take care of his parents. Suit schedule property .lands were already partitioned on 11.03.1989 among their father, mother (D6), plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and a simple partition deed was a,lso executed to that effect. Hence, the question of partitioning the land again does not arise. After paJtition, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds to plaintiff arrd Defendants I and 2. Plaintiff and Defendants I and 2 sold Ac. 1.00 gts in Survey No. 812 under a registered document dated 05.O8.2002, of which Piaintifls land of Ac. O-17 gts, Defendant No.l's land of Ac. O-17 gts and Defendant No.2's land of Ac.O-06 gts, were included. Defendant No. I purchased Ac. O-10 gts belonging to Kondabathula Rajamma, W/o Mallaiah in Survey No. 137. It is denied that plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2 were in joint possession of the property.

5. Defendant No.2 hled written statement on the same lines of written statement of Defendant No. 1. Defendants 3 to 5 remained l I J ex parte. Defendant No.6 died teaving plaintiff and Delendant Nos' L ald 2 as her Iegal heirs. Though piainLiff tried to project that suit schedule

6. properties are ancestral properties ald not partitioned, in cross- examination, he admitted that the properties were pu:chased by his father alone ald neither plaintiff nor Defendants 1 -anc 2 contributed any amount for purchase of the same. Thus, it is clear, plaintiff has not come with truc facts even about the nature of the properties of his father. The suit schedule properties are self-acquirerl properties of Ramasu,amy father of plaintiff and Defendants I arrd :2

7. Regarding trx. B I unstamped partition dccd, plaintiff contended that it is an ttnregistercd one and un-statnpcd partition deed is required to be regrstered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. It cannot even be looked into for collateral purpose in view of Section 9l of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court below observed that Ex. B I contains the signatures of Ramaswamy ancl Plarntlff and Defendants 1 and 2 and some others. Thus, Ramasrvamy, father of Plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2, partitioned his lands among his sons. Under Hindu joint family, it is not uncommon for the father during his life time to distnbute his property to his sons' Ex.B- I is an 'Instrument of Partition', which means amy

8. instrument whereby co-owners of any property divide or agree to divide such property in severalty, and includes also a f,rnal order for affecting partition passed by any revenue authority or al-v Civil Court and al award by al arbitrator directrng a parf ition (and a memorandum regarding past partitron). The instrument of partition in question relates to a partition between co-owners, but t'lot with regard I 4 to partition among co-sharers; as such, the Court below opined that quesLion of registration of ttrat document does not arise when the properties are divided arnong the co-parceners of Hind Joint family.

9. The Court below further held that even if it is assumed that it is an unregistered partition deed and requires registration, this Court in Pudi Balrqiu u. Jallu Anncr1oorzral has categorically held that even arr unregistered document can be looked into for limited collateral purpose to prove the division of status, taking of possession and the nature arrd character of the possession of the shares allotted since these being collateral purpose, can be received into evldence. The same principle was reiterated in Khaia Habeebuddin v- Md. Ibrahim2.

10. The Trial Court further held that Ex. B-1 is a memorardum of past partition "Takeseemnama" and DW- 1 in his cross-examination deposed that at the time of execution of Ex.B-l, plaintiff, Defendants I and 2. their parents and some other relatives were present. Both DWs- 1 and 2 categorically deposed that even prior to 1989, their properties were partitioned among ttrem and one month after the partition, they got executed Ex.B-l. This evidence was not shuttered by plaintiff in cross-examination. Regarding lack of averment in the written statement about one month pnor to Ex. B-1 the properties were settled among them, the trial Court held that since properties were settled among them and tenure of document proves it is a past transaction, even if there is aly variation in the pleadings about the past partition in the written statement, it will not vitiate the execution of Ex. B- 1. ' 2003(6) ALD 2s7 ' 2oo4(4) ALD a4 5

11. Yet another piece of evidence taken into consideration by the tria-l Court is that when CW-3 was declared hostilc and cross- examined by learned counsel for defendants, he admilted that father of CW- l one Jagannatham had six brothers includrng late Ramaswamy (father of plaintiff arld Defendants 1 arld 2) and all the six brothers partitioned their properties. Simila;ly, all the sons of said six brothers have also partitloned their lands. This itself is sufhcient to hold that late Ramaswamy has also partitioned his grroperties, held the trial Court.

12. Similarly, after hling the written statements by defendants that plaintiff and themselves sold tl-re lancl allotted in partition in Sun,ey No. 812 u,hich is one of the suit suney numbers, plaintift hled arr Application for a.:mendment of the p)aint admitting about t1.e said sale and requested for deletion of Surve-, No. 812 from the suit schedule. This itself is sufficient to say that p aintiff has not come to the Court with clean har-rds, opined the trial Cc,urt. Ex. B-2 is the certified copy of registered sale deed of land in Survey' No. 812 executed by plaintiff, Defendants I and 2 on 05.O9.200 1 and it was admitted by plaintiff. That itself extinguished the stald oi the plaintiff that no partition is taken place, held the Court.

13. Regarding the contention of plaintiff that there is no equal partition affected between the brothers i.e. plaintiff and Defendants I and 2, it is held whether there is a p.rrtition or not is the only point to be viewed and whether it is equally done or not is immaterial for the present lis. It is also hekl that merely because plalntiff is given less share by his father, hc cannot \ l I I ; 6 come with new plea that no partition took place, that too after a lapse of 20 years.

74. The trial Court further held that Paha-nies and several Encumbrance Certificates filed by the parties show that Survey Nos. 135 and 137 are in occupation of several third parties even by the date of filing of the suit, in spite of this, plaintiff had not taken any steps to bring the said purchasers as parties to the suit or issued any notices to them disputing the sales affected in their favour. This Court is of the view that it is sufficient to say that plaintiff is no way concerned with the land sold by defendants 1 and 2 as the same was fallen to their shares.

15. On technical side, the Court below held that plaintiff paid the fixed court fee under Section 3a(i) of the AP Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 claiming that he is in joint possession of suit schedule properties, but since he is not in possession of any of the suit schedule properties, he is liable to pay court fee under section 3a(i) of the said Act. Hence, the Court below held, the court fee paid by plaintiff is insufhcient. In the result, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.

16. Heard Sri Aarifa Imran Khan, learned counsel lor appellant as well as Sri Mohd- Imran Khan and MWR Jayakar, learned counsel for respondents.

77. Learned counsel for appellant submits that since Ex.B-1 is an unstamped and unregistered document, it cannot I I I I { I i 7 be taken into consideration to hold that suit scherlule properties are already partitioned. Admittedly, Ex. B- I I s bearing the signature of Plaintiff, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, tlLeir father and some of their relatives. It is an Instrument of Parl Ltion regarding past partition. As stated above, this Court in plethora of cases - held that even an unregrstered document can be looked into for limited collateral purpose to prove the division ol status, taking of possession and the nature and character of posscssion of the share allotted since this being collateral purpose, can be received into evidence. Even otherwise, admission by the plaintilf though disputing quantum of share :ind by other witnesses will go to show that properties were already partitioned and plaintiff with unclean hands approached the Court seeking partition of the suit schedule properties motivated.

18. On behalf of plaintiff, it is argtred that an unstamped document Ex. B-1 cannot be admitte,l in evidence even for coliateral purpose in view of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, relying on a decision in Rachakonda Ralmakotesutra Rao a. Illanohar Fuel Centre, Nereducherla, Khammann3. This decision is distinguishable. In the case on hand, Ex. B-1 is a olakeseenama' regarding past partition and plaintiff himself admitted it though taking objection that he was ' 2oo3(21ALD 638 I I 8 allotted less share. Therefore, this decision is of no help to the plaintiff.

19. The defendant placed reliance on the Order in CRP No. 4262 of 2OO3, wherein it was held that admissibility of an unregistered partition deed has been the subject matter of discussion in several cases and a larger Bench of this court in Muthgalareddg u. Venkatreddgl, held that even an unregistered partition deed can be received in evidence for the collateral purposes and the whole process of partition contemplates 3 phases, viz., (al Severance of status; (b) Division of joint property by metes and bounds; and (c) Nature of possession of the various sharers.

20. The other decisions in Kale u. Dg. Dtrector of Consolidations; K. Antmugaveldidh u. P.R. RamasamgS; Korukonda Chalapthl Rao a. Korukonda Annotr urna Sc;;mprrth KutnarT; Gur Noro,in Das u. Gur Tahai Das€, relied on by defendants, though are on different set of facts enumerated therein, the refrain point is tJlat even an unstamped document can be looked into as a collateral evidence, when execution of the same is not in dispute.

21. In view of the above pronouncements, the view of the Court below that Ex.B-l can be looked into for collateral purposes, cannot be {bund fault with. No new grounds are o NR 1969 AP 242 5 AIR 1976 sc 8o7 '.-6{3022) 3 SCC 757 ' zoztlt ty scALE s96 t atR 19s2 sc z2s 9 raised for consideration in this Appeal. The Appr:al is bereft of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

23. The Appeal is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. .S d/- K \J SRINIVASA RAO INT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I S CTION OFFICER To, t The I Additional District Judge' at Karimnag-ar' (With records) , ;; cll" iii Aarifa lmran khan' Advocate [oPUt]l ; il.66 il stiV Hari Haran' Advocate toPU-91-. .. 6a i" sri M W R Jayakar' Advocate IoPUC] i 5 Two CD CoPies "." DL/ABK HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 JUDGMENT AS.No.965 of 2008 H1 tr iA, c \ o o I 5 AU6 2025 ]l',i\glC\ * z ..,) -t DISMISSING THE APPEAL [ 3300 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENW EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSANO AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA APPEAL SUIT NO: 965 OF 2008 Between: KOMAKULI-A SATHAIAH, S/o. Ramaswamy, Occ: Retired Singareni Employee R/o. Bommakal Village of Karimnagar Mandal and District. ...Appel lanUPlai ntiff AND

1. KOMAKULA VEERAIAH, S/o. Ramaswamy, Occ: Retired Teacher, R/o. Bommakal Village of Karimnagar Mandal and District.

2. Komakula Anlaneyulu, S/o. Ramaswamy, Occ: Government Employee, R/o. H.No. 10-4-66/3411 ,Bank Colony, Karimnagar. (Died per LRs RR 7 to 9) 3. Nagaraj Kamala, Wo. Satyanarayana Household, Rl/o. H.No.9-1-172, Near Mamatha Theatre, Bhagathnagar, Karimnagar.

4. Tadagonda Manemma, Wo. Vittal, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 94-207, Sapthagiri Colony, Karimnagar.

5. Nagaraj Sarojana, Wo. Satyanarayana, Occ: Household R/o. H.No. 84-84, Ganeshnagar, Karimnagar.

6. Komakula Lalithamma, (since deceased) (Respondents 3 to 5 set exparte in the lower court. Hence given up)

7. Komakula Vinoda, W o. Late Komakula Anjaneyulu, now aged about 50 years, Occ Household, R o. H.No.10-4-6613411 , Bank Colony, Karimnagar.

8. Komakula Adithya, Sio. Late Komakula Anlaneyulu, now aged about 25 years, Occ Student, R/o. H.No.104-6613411 , Bank Colony, Karimnagar. 9. Komakula Anuhya, D/o. Late Komakula Anjaneyulu, now aged about 22 years, Occ Student, R/o. H.No.10-4-6613411 , Bank Colony, Karimnagar. (RR7 to 9 brought on record as LR's of the deceased R2 as per Court order dated 18/08/2010 in CMP. No. 1508 of 2010) ...RESPONDENTS 'L{&._ rF Appeal filed under Sec. 96 of CPC, aggrieved by the Judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 42 of 2O06 Dated 31-7-2008 on the file of the court of the I Additional Diskict Judge, at Karimnagar. ORDER:This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. Aarifa lmran Khan, for the Appellant and of Sri V Hari Haran, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1,7 to g and Sri M. W. R. Jayakar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 10 to i2. This Gourt doth Order and Decree as follows :

1. That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed. 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR t \ \ I SECTION OFFICER t The I Additional District Judge, at Karimnagar. (With records) 2. Two CD Copies DL/ABK HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 DECREE AS.No.965 of 2008 DISMISSING THE APPEAL