The High Court · 2025

Civil Judge, Kari'lnagar, in O.S.No. I23 of 20ll \vas c,rtrfir'rr1cd

2. Thc appcllant lrerein is delendant and respotrdent hercin is plaintiff, beforc the trial Court. For convenietrce, h,:rcitrafter the parties are refclled to as they are arravcd in the suit.

3. l'he brie| lacts of the case are that plaintiff fllcd the suit irr O.S.No. 123 of 20 ll, seeking padition of the propertic;. IIr the plaint, it is averred that the dclendant and plaintiff arc sons i,1'Late Mogula Ashalu, who constitute a Hindu Joint undivided L'amil1,. eoverncd by Mitakshara Schoo[; that Schedule 'A' property is ltouse bearing Il.No.2-99, adr.neasurit.tg 363 Sq.yards, situated at VrLlrchal Vitlage, Rarnadugu Mandal, Karimnagar District and Schedulc 'l)' property is 2 1,N,,1 J sA.No )A of2025 land bearing No.2l0, situated at Valichal Vittage, Ramadugu Mandal, to an extent olAc.0-08 gts, which are in the name of Mogula Ashalu; that the plaintifl'and delendant are in joint possession ol the suit schedule propcrty and after thc death of their father, dcfendant dismantled the house only to deprive his share from the property; that plaintiff gavc complaint to the Grampanchayath and a legal notice daled 14.12.2012 was issued to the defendant to stop construction and defendant issued reply notice dated 26.12.2012 denying a[[ the facts Therefore, plaintilf filcd suit for partition of schedule properties inro two equal shares.

4. I)efendant frled written statement denying the allegation made in the plaint, however, admitted the reiationship that they are brothers; that schedule A property is self acquired property of his father and schedulc B property docs not belong to thcir father; that their father' gave all the properties to plaintiff and defendant and schedule A property is held lor hirnself with the explicit purpose of giving it to the person who would provide services to him, take care of his wcll being and his medical expenses. Defendant further averred that as he performed the above dutics including funeral to his father, schedule A

6.c*ilg",* w 3 L\"1 .t S.t \o )0 of 2D5 property bclongs to hirr and plaintiff is not entitlcd to an1' sharc of thc sarne. Hence, played to dismiss the suit

5. On thc basis ol- the above pleadings of both thc f,arlies, thc trial Court framed thc tbllowing issues lor trial:- "(l) l{lrctlter the plaintt// is t'rttitled -[or ltttt r't,ott and separdte posse.s.;ion of lnlf shorL' irt the .ruit : t htrlule propert i(s c:s prdyed Jbr2 (2)) T'o v'hat raliL:/? "

6. During the coulse of thc -l'rial, plaintiff got exitrtiltccl as PW.l and PW2 and ]lxs.Al to A.4 wcre marked. On bchall'ol thc clefendant, DW.1 and I)W.2 were examincd and Ex.B I was lttark l(l 1 . After lutl-flcdged trial and r.rpon considcrin 3 thc oral and documentary evidencc and thc contentiotls of both thc [-'artics, the trial Court decrced the suit, vde judgment and decree datcc LOl .2019.

8. The trial Court categorically observed as hcreulrd,lr:- " 11. tyith regard to the suit Schedule A property. iL i: ltlcaded by lhe plaintifl tlnt tlte de.fendant is residing n the suit schedult' A house and after the demise of their ./.:.rtlrcr the defendattt ltas distnantled the house. With regi,r,l to this averment, the plainti,ff ltas gol marked Ex.A2 ltttcr. dt; 4 LNA, J SA.lio 20 of 2025

10.01 .201 3 addre.ssed h.v the Grampanchatath Secretary, Valichal village to lhe platnti/f herein stating that house No.2- 99 is in the name of Mogula Atlalah arul Mogula Komuraiah, i.e., the plaintiff und deJbndant herein. Ex.A3 is the lefter addressed by the plainti/f to the Grantpanchayath Secretary to stop the construction tnder taken b), his brother- Mogula Komuraialt, as he is also having a sltare in the suit schedule A property. Ex.Al is lagal notice, dt: 11.I2 20I2 given by the plaintilf ro the dc/cndant thereby asking the defendant not to proceed witlt tht: c:onstriction of the house in schedttle-A properO', which is lheir ancestral properDt. [!614syer, thcre is no dispute u'illt rcgurd to tltc dismantling of lnuse b), the defendant and conslruclion ofa new lnuse. 12. PW.2/A. l-ingaiah, v,hose house is oppo.rile lo suit schedule A hottse wcts eramined to support the case of lhe plaintiff. The evident:e of PW.2 is to the elfect that plainti,ff and defendant conslitutc f lindt joint fantily and that suit schedule properties are in lhe nante of their father. Ilis evidence is further to the e/Ject that plainti/fs fatlrcr is having land in an extent ol l-15 gts at Beeraialt 7-entple and Ac.0-24 gts at Chincheruvu and Ac. I -00 gts in the outskirts of Votichal village. His evidence is fttrtlnr to the ejfect that plaintiff is having a house itt an extent of Ac.0-03 guntas. Il is suggested to PW.2 that the plaintilf, defendant and their father have entered into an agreement on 20.01.1986 wherein it is mentioned that wlto cver takes care of Mogula Ashalu in his old age, they are entitled for the house and as per the agreement, the defendant agreed to look after his father and r ) L\:|l. J 5.1 \o.20 of2a:5 accordingl.r. the house wds f:iven to the de.fc t itl' ttlt . It is pertinent to nrcnlion that the defendant ha:; plc,'ttcd in his written statenletlt that his.fathet' had kept the lnusL trlticlt is irt an extetlt of lE X lB t|illt llitll and he expresscd lti.s tt lt'tttttttt lo give the lrcnrse to thc -son, v,ho will look after lti.s t tlliu L: ond as defenclant htt.s rendered services to his Jathcr i.ttl lnu-\e scheduled .4 hou.se v'as allotted lo him. No rafcrL't c' is ntade in the writlen slalement obout the agreement tll( t't.\ .\did lo be entered into be lwcen plaintilf, defendctnt arul rttrr .litlrcr. Without taking .such a plea in his written sltttL',|t(:rtt ond without su,qgesting the same to the plaintil//PlV. t. tlrc scune was sugge,sletl PI|/.2 who is rtot member of tlt t't,it .furrtil.t'. The renruining part of lti-r cross-eran inol ir tr t tr L.r,t itt li,rnrul lines and nothing sigtificant could be elicitt'Lt lront his testinrottlt. Therc are no itiirmilies in the evidcnc,-' r,l l'H/.2 to discredit his teslimonv. " U.l. The Trial Court has further observed as heretuttlcr:- " 14. It is recited in Ex.Bl settlement deed that tltc 'trtu.;e in utt extent of Ac.0-03 guntas, Ac.0-08 guntas ()l lLtnd in Sv.No.210/ll, amounl of Rs.2,500/- which is lhe .rrt',' ltroi:ecds shall be divided inlo three parts, and one sluu'e ct'L,t shall be given to Mogalu Ashalu and his sons. It is .fifftlt(t ltcnt ioued that the slLare of Mogalu Ashalu ',vill be kept v ittt L4()gula Komuraiah, who has to look after the welfare o./'hi,' litlu:r and after the demise of his father, his father's slrure v,ill rtlcvolve on him. Apart /rom these properties, sheeps and rt:ltt'r gold 6 LNA, J 91.No.20 of2025 ornaments were agreed to be given to the sons after the demise of Mogula Ashalu. It is apparent from Ex.B I Family settlement deed that the land in an extent of Ac.0-08 gunta.s in Sy.No.2l1/B was shown to be in the name of Mogula Ashalu herein. Though the defendant has denied that suit schedule B properry) does not belong to their family, reference has been made in respect of Ex.Bl Settlement deed aboul the suit schedule B propert.v which sltow.s that defendant has pleaded falsely I 5. Further with regard to the Dx.B I Family settlement deed, when DII'. I was cros.s -exafiined, he stated tlrut the plaintilf did not pul hi.s signature on Ex.B I settlement deed. This shows that the plaintiff did not agree to the terms mentioned in Ex.Bl document. ... If assumingfor a moment thot suit schedule A property i.e., House in an extent of Ac.0-03 guntas v,as gi.ven to the defendant by his father for rendering .services in his old age, when Mogula Ashalu died in the year 2008, the defendant did not take any steps for mutation of his name in tlrc Grampanchayath records relating to Schedule-A house till filing of this suit in the year 20 1 3. Even, Ex.A2 information furnished by the Grampanchayath Secretary of Velichala village, dt. 10.01.2013 shov,s that the suit Schedule-A house bearing 2-99 is in the name of plainti,ff and defendant herein respectively. Therefore, it can be culled out that the suit schedule-A is in the joint possession of plainriff and deferutant and in order to deprive the plaintiff of his share, the defendant ,ry I I l LN.,1, J SA.io.20 of2025 has dismantled the old house and he has wtdcrtaken the conslructiotl. " 9 Aggrievcd by the judgmcnt dated 11.07.20 1!t. the plaintiff prcl'cffed appcal vide A.S.No. 108 ol 2013 and thc first Appcllate Court, being the final fact-hnding Cour1, re-apprec iirtcd the entire evidence and material available on tecord and dismi:;s:d thc Appcal, vide its judgnrent dated 17.06.2019, thereby, confirmin-{ the judgrnent of tl-re trial Courl. I (). The first Appellate Court in its judgnrerrtt observed as hcrcunder:- "16. Thougit the defendant has pleaded that hi\ lttther hus transferred 'A' schedule properry in his nane bt t ntt such document v,as placed by the defendant to slutty tln.t 'A' schedule proper\) was transfeted in the name of dt ft'ndant bv his father .4shalu. Therefore, it is clear that tl't'"e i.s tto document to show that "A" schedule properly is trurfbrrcd in the name of defendant by Ashalu. Ilence, the deJbnua.tt cctnnot claim an1, exclusive right over 'A' schedule proper^ tntl Lteing children of Ashalu the plaintilf and defendant are ht.'vitg equal share over 'A' schedule property.

17. According to the plaintffi his father is also otr.er pf 'lJ' schedule property. On perusing the writlen statcltenl lhe defendant has simply mentioned that'B'schedule propertv not 8 LN/I, J SA.No.20 of202i belongs to their family at all and they were no u,ay concerned with 'B' schedule property. However, on perusing Ex.A I , Il schedule property v)as in the name of father of plaintiff and defendant. Further more on perusing the cross eramination of Dw.2 who scribed Ex.Bl has deposed that Ex.Bi was executed for A and B schedule properties.

10.1 . I'he First Appellate Court has fi-rrther obserucd as hereunder:- ... -At the time of cross examination [hv.2 deposed that he do not lotow to whom 'B' schedule properl_y was sold by AshaLu during his life time. No document was filed by the defendant to show that 'B' schedule propery' was sold by his fatlrcr during his life time. By filing written statetnent, the defendant has taken a plea that'B' schedule property is not at all belongs to lheir family, but the cross examination of Dw 2 shows that Ashalu himself has sold 'B' schedule property durin.g his life time. No steps were taken by the defendant to fill-up the latches on his part. On the contrary Ex.Al clearly establislting that Ashalu was original owner and possessor of 'B' schedule property. Therefore, it can safely held that R schedule propertv belongs to the father of the plainti,ff and defendant and tl.te plaintiff and defendant being the children of Ashalu are having equal share in 'B' schedule property" 1 1. Heard Sri N. Janardhan Reddy, leamed counsel lor the appellant. Perused the entire material avaitable on record. ) t. 9 LNA,.I S.l.)io.20 of2025

12. Leamed counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court as lvell as fir'st appellate Couft erroneously decreed tlre suit without properly appreciating the contentions raised and adducr:d on behalf of the appellant. Lcarned counsel further contended that troth lhe Coults faited to consider Ex.B 1 i.e., family scttlernent de,rd u'hich was cntered into betrveen thc appellant and respondent ir-r consultation rvith eldcrs and discarded the same only on the ground thar. thc same was not signcd by the rcspondent. Therefore, irnpugne,l judgment unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. ll. A perusal ofrecord would disclose that the trja[ Court as well as the hrst Appellate Court concurrently held that schedulc A and B propefties alc ioir-rt lamily plopcrlics and therefore, lrppellant as rvell as rcspondent are enlitled to share the said properties eclualll'. Both the Courts have rejected the contention of the appellant trat schedule A propcfty was allotted to him as per family settlemeut d,:ed i.e., Ex.Bl, as the same rvas not proved and was not signed by respondent/ plaintiff. Botli the Courts further held that appellant fai .ed to provc his contention that the properties are given to him by t:ir; lather for the ssrvices rendered by hirn and in fact no evidence was placed on record 10 (.. '" LNA, J SA.No.2a ol2025 to prove his contention and no steps have been taken by the appellant to mutate his name in the revenue records in pursuance of the said endorsement. Therefore, both the Courts rojected the conlentions of the appellant 14- In considered view of this Courl, the leamcd counsel lor appcllant failed to raise any substantial question of law to be decided by this Court in this Second Appeal. In fact, all the grounds raised in this appeal are lactual in nature and do not qualily as the substantial questions of law in terms of Section 100 C.P.C.

15. It is well settled principle by a catena of dccisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed undcr Section 100 C.P.C., this Court cannot interfere with the findings on facts arrived at by the first Appellate Court, which are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record l6 Further, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kakit, the Apex Court held that the High Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power uflder Section 100 ' (2007) 1 Supreme Court cases 546 : i I I i 1l t.NA..l 5.1.1'0.20 of2025 C.P.C. is very' limited arld it can be exercised only \^'l'cre a substalrtial qucstion of lau' is raiscd and lalls for consideration

17. Having considercd the entire material available on recotd and thc findings |ecorcled by thc I'rrst Appellate Court, this Courl fiuds no ground or reason wat'ranting interference with the saitl findings, under Section 100 C.P.C. Morcovet, the grounds raiscd bv tlle appellant are tactual in natut e and rlo question of law, much loss a substal-ltial question of [ari'arises, lor consideration in this Secon'J Appeal' l8 Ilence, thc Second Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at thc stagc of admission. No costs- Pcnding tnisccllaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD GIST t OFFICER To,

1. The Courtof the I Additional District Judge at Karimnagar. z. The Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Karimnagar 3. One CC to SRl. N JANARDHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies. Pcsd/gh w>- l a- t I a Ii HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 / I ) JUDGMENT SA.No.2O ot 2025 ., ,, ,:.: n 15 0 0 tlou 295 .\../ 't.\ ParcuEL- a I(( A + DISMISSING THE SEGOND APPEAL AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION t" A ,)