High Court · 2025

...Respondents/Defendants lA NO:3 OF 2023 Petition under order 39 Rure 1&2 R/w section 151 cpc praying that in tfie circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, itrJHigh court may be pleased to pass an order of injunction restraining the respondent ilo.1 & 2 (schedule 'ii' to 'viii'), respondent No.3. (schedute 'l') from alienating the petition schedule properties in favour of any 3'd party in pending disposal of the second Appeal, in the interest of justice. i ! i I t { I i ! I i I i I I I I I I I I i i i i I i I I I I i I I t I I I I I Counsel for the App,ellant: Sri Nambi Krishna Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: M/s. Srikanth Hariharan Counsel for the Respondents No.2 & 3: None Appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JIISTICE P,SREE SUDIIA SECOND APPEAL No. 351 of 2023 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is frled aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.1O.2022 passed in A.S.No.20 of 2O18 by the learned. Principal District and Sessions Judge, at Sangareddy in which the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.632 of 2OO7 dated 03.01.2018 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Sangareddy was reversed.

2. O.S.No.632 of 2OO7 was hled by the appellant/plaintiff against respondents/defendan ts for partition and separate possession. The trial court preliminarily decreed the suit on O3.O1.2018. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court the respondents herein preferred an appeal in A.S.No.20 of 2O18. The first appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court. Aggrieved b1,the said judgment, the appellant herein frled the present second appeal on the following substantial qrrestions of law: (1) WhettLer the appellate court contmitted mateial illegalitg and iregularity in reuersing pofilA the tuell considered judgment of the tial Courl ttho had an opportunitA to see the demeanor of the u.titnesses, 2 uithaut looking into th.e joinf possession ouer the suit schectt le properties. (2) Wfuzther the appellant entitlement partition ouer the Item .r,l,t- 1 of suit schedule propertA and mere demcll of partition of th-e appellant share in item No.l oJ suit properla bg the respondent No.3 tDithout discharoing their 'cttus in osserting tle title is ualid and pennissible under the la u-t. (3) W1e.ther the tial Court belout is ight in grantinq the relief of partition dgainst the respondents, respond.e'nts admitted that tLe appellant u.till haue ight ouer the ances:tral propertg and th.e appellant and responcient No.2 ttt be legal heirs and joint posses-sion of .;uit properties? (4) W*zther the tial Court belou-t is ight uietu of stc 8 of Hincll Succession Act, as such the aliertation ntade by thtz- respondents 1 & 2 in fauour of the responclert No.3 ir. respect of item No.1 of propertA need to be treated as bad in la ut i,s permissible under the lanu'? (5) Wte,ther the utell reasoned fining of facts arriueC by the appellate Court belout tuhich has an opportunitrt to see tlte demeanor of tLE tuitnesses can be rnisintlerpreted on assumptions and presumption:; by the aytpellate Court? (6) W,\tzther oral euidence can be preuailed upon the clocunrcntary euidence uhich has been fi.ler1 u.nd prouetl by examining tlrc appropiate witnessr-s? 3 (7) WlLettter the appellate Court can conskTer the euidence of tle parties uithout any pleading in their support? (8) WLether the judgment of tLe appellate Court belou.t holds good in uieut of non consideration of Exhibits A1 to A7? (9) Wlether on oduerse inference can be draun against the persons u.tho deliberatelg suppress tLrc mateial doanments uhich ore releuant in deciding the moteial issues? (1O) Whether the learned trial Couft rtghtly heLd that in tle 1/ 3 share of the plaintiff ond. respondent Nos. I & 2 constituted a coparcener and therefore each of them had- 1/3d share, ond tLer4ore the share of each coparcener stnuld haue been I / 3 shore? (11) WLether the Louter AppelLate Court [s right in holding *Lat the plaintiff is not entitled to portition in respect item No.1 of tlrc suit propeftA ouerlooking the pleadings and the doanments of titLe in the istont case and a-s per Apex Court Vineet Sharma i/s Rakesh Sharma.(AIR 2o2O (SC) 337(17)?

3. Heard both sides. Perused the record

4. The parties herein are referred as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed before the trial Court for thc sake of convenlence. i I I I i I i I i I I I 4

5. Th,e brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed O.S.No.632 of 2OO7 for partition and separate possession of agriculturzrl land bearing Sy.No.770/A, admeasuring Ac.l.2L guntas, IJy.Nop.194, 195, 376, 381, 431 and 438 admeasuring Ac.O. 13 % guntas, Ac.O.13 rZ gr.rntas. Ac.O.06 guntas, ac 0.08 g.untas, aC.0.17 guntas arld Ac.O.O,l guntas and house bearing No.3_g3 situated at Rudraram Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. plaintiff stated that she along n'ith defendant Nos.1 and 2 constitute a joint undivided llinclu Farn l-r.. They are having equal rights over the propertlr ancl it is :rrLcestral property of plaintiff ald defendarrt Nos.1 and 2. Defenclant No.1 tried to deprive the legitimate share of plai.tiff arLc negotiating with some third parties triecr to serl t he propertl on 04. 11.2OO2. Defendant No.l useC to give plaintilfs l,-gitimate share in shape of money till 2O,J6 an<l later lre stopped to pay the same, as such plaintiff demancred lor her sira.r: on Il.It.2OOZ. Defendant No. 1 did not give an-r repl,r' anrl not paid her share amount. plaintiff suspectecl the defendzLrrt No. 1, as such she approached the Revenue Oflice ancl rnade enquiries and came to know that suit schedule llrcjlertl was transferred in the name of deli.ndant No.3 behinci thc back of plaintiff. ptaintiff is h^rirr. -+/9,n / 5 share in the suit schedule property but the defendants tried to grab the property. Defendant No. 1 abused plaintiff and refused to give her share, as such she approached the Court and sought for her 4/9h share in the suit schedule property.

6. Defendant No.3 in his written statement stated that after detailed enquiry, the MRO issued mutation proceedings No.193 dated L7.03.1994 and the larrd in Sy.No.77O admeasuring Ac.3.02 guntas was mutated in the name of defendant No.3 as per registered sale deed daLed 22.O1.'1994 executed by defendant No.1 and Bathini Chennaiah. Defendant No.3 became the absolute owner and possessor of the property in the year 1994. Plaintiff never objected rhe same. Defendant No.3 leveled the land and flxed rhe boundaries with fencing wire and kadis, dug bore u.ell and hxed the electric motor with electricity consumer No.SC 524, Rudraram Village, and from then onwards defendant No.3 is in peaceful possession of the property and also cultivating rhe land and doing agriculture for more than 12 years. Plaintiff, in collusion with defendant Nos. 1 and. 2 to extract more money hled this case for clairning 4/9rrr share $,ithout mentioning the other properties held b,y the f ather of plaintiff. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are having other lands in Rudraram l i I I I I t I t i I i E i : i 6 Village. .lefendant No.I already sold the property to defendant I'1o.3 by way of registered sale deecl dated

22.01.1994. Defendant No.3 is cultivating the lald from 1994 by fixing the boundaries and thus plaintiff knera, about the sale tn 2OO7 is incorrect. Defendant No.3 is 'b,:nafide purchaser :rncl he purchased the property from lawful owner. Therefore, r'equested the Court to dismiss the suit. 7 . Plaintil-f examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 atd got marked Exs.A i to A7 and defendant No.3 examined D.Ws.l and 2 and got marked Exs.B1 to 819. The trial Court considering the oral and docurnentan' cvidence decreed the suit and h€ld plaintrff, dr:f,:nclant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for 1/3.,r share each over the sr-rit schedule property. Aggrieved by the said judgment. d:lendant No.3 preferred A.S.No.20 of 2O L8 and the first zrp 1-'.ellate Court allowed the appeal by settirre aside the judgme'r t of the trial Court. The first appellate Court stated that ptaintiff rvas aged 30 years at the time of liling of the suit anrl at the time of sale, she would have been l'7 years old and shc u,ould have attained majority in the year 1995 but she clirl not attempt to file the suit till the year 2OO7 . Defendant lio.3 s.as in possession of the suit schedule propert), lor the past 12 vears and plaintiff has knowledge 7 about the sale of the property and she also admitted that she is not having good terms with defendant Nos. I and 2 since the property was sold in favour of defendant No.3. plaintiff has not hled pahanies for the years 1994 to 2OO4. Though she has knowledge of the proceedings, she did not rrre the suit immediately and accordingly the first appellate Court allou,ed the appeal. B. Learned counsel for respondents contended that there is no substantial question of law and the appellant did not sought for the cancellation of the document and the appeal has ro be {iled within three year after attaining majority as per Article 15 of the Limitation Act. Though she has knorvleclge of the sale transaction in the year 1997, she kept cluiet till 2OO7 . In this case, defendant No. 1 sold the property to defendant No.3. Though plaintiff has knowledge of the proceedings, she kept quiet for 12 years and fired the suir for partition in the said property. Defendant No.3 purchased the property under Ex.Bl and also frted Ex.B2 to substantrate his version. It is clear that plaintiff filed the suit in collusion ri ith defendant Nos. lald 2 to grab the propert-v f rom defendant No.3. The first appellate Court rightly consiclerecl all the facts and rightiy allowed the appeal by settrng aside ( I L 8 the judgnLent of the trial Court. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere \ .ith the judgment of the fist appellate Court

9. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed with costs confirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court dated 13.1O.2O22 passed in A.S.No.2O of

2018. closed Misc,:llaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand //TRUE COPY// Sd/. N, CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO D.EP,IJTY REGISTRAR Nr V SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The Principal Distnct and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy 2. The Principal .Junior Civit Judge, Sangareddy. 3. One CC to Sri Nambr Krishna. Advocate tOpUCI 4. One CC to M,rs. Srikanth Hariharan, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copier; 9* U I ; i I j , : : i 't i\:- :-r4i. :t. 'i \. o i) 0 5 tiir ?ili 1\ t -D/ 5;. \:---_-;l' - r'L ' /. HIGH GOUR.T DATED:2010112025 JUDGMENT SA.No.351 ol'2023 DISMISSING OF THE SECOND APPEAL (+ l'> -V i, t \tnpt) I 1 I 1 I I I I I i I I I