The High Court · 2026

Petiticn under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affida,rit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant injuncton restraining the respondent Nos. 2,4 & 5 from alienating, creating charge and changing the entries in respect of the suit schedule agriculture properties pr:nding the above appeal. ' Counsel for the Appellants : SRl. V V RAMANA Counsel for the Respondents : SRI SAKINALA SRINIVASULU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2,4,5,7 & 8 : SRlV.V. NARASIMHA RAO The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT 7 as_1285 2001 NBK, J , JUDGMENT: APPEAL SUIT No.1285 of 2001 This Appeal is filed by the appellants (plaintiffs before the Senior Civil Judgb, at Nalgonda, in O.S.No.25 of 1995) assailing the Common Judgment dated 26.02.2001 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda (for short, 'the trial Court') in O.S.No.25 of 1995 and O.S.No.23 of 1996. For convenience, the parties will be referred as plaintiffs and defendants.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiffs and defendants before the trial Court is as follows:

2.1 The plaintiffs, comprising the first plaintiff (claiming to be the widow of the deceased Bollam Ramulu), their two sons, and a daughter, filed a comprehensive suit for partition. Their case is that the suit properties (C, D, and E schedules) were ancestral joint family properties originating from their grandfather, Bollam Ramaiah. They allege that upon Ramaiah's death, the properties devolved to his sons, Lingaiah and Veeraiah. As Veeraiah died issueless, his share passed by survivorship to his brother Lingaiah, the father of Bollam Ramulu. The plaintiffs contend that a partition occurred between BollamRamulu and his brother Narsimha, wherein the C and D schedule lands and the E schedule house were allotted to Ramulu's share. They assert that the fourth plaintiff, being unmarried at the time of the alleged partition, was a coparcener. Upon Ramulu's death, they claim to have succeeded to these properties as his legal heirs, being in joint possession. They challenge a will dated 1975 (Ex.B-l), purportedly executed by Ramulu bequeathing the C schedule property to defendants 3 to 8, as forged and invalid. Furthermore, they argue that the D schedule land, a protected tenancy, was invalidly sold to 2 as_1285_2001 NBKJ- the second defendant by the landlord without first offering it to them as the protected lenants, rendering the sale void under tenancy laws. Their claim for shares is presented in the alternative, depending on the court's findings on the legitimacy of the parties and the validity of the will'

2.2 The defendants, comprising the first defendant (Ramulu's daughter fi'om his first wife) and defendants 2 to 8 (the second defendant claiming r.o be Ramulu's legally wedded wife and their children), vehementlll deny the plaintiffs' entire case. Their core defense is that the first plaintiff is not the legally wedded widow of BollamRamulu and that plaintiffs 2 to 4 are not his legitimate children, asserting that they have no relation to or rights from the deceased. They contend that the second defendant rvas the legally wedded wife of BollamRamulu after the death of his first wi[e, and defendants 3 to 8 are their legitimate children who have always resided with him on the suit properties. They claim the C-schedule property was not ancestral but was the self-acquired property of Bollam Ramulu, heving been purchased by him from his uncle, Veeraiah, in 1955 (Ex.B-2). T'hey fully rely on the registered will of 1975 (Ex.B-l), through which Rarnulu lawfully bequeathed this self-acquired property to defendants 3 to 8. Regarding the D-schedule land, the second defendant claims it wrrs her self-acquired property, purchased from the landlord with her own '.'S'treedhana" funds, and denies any protected.tenancy rights of the plaintifls or the deceased. They also claim the E-schedule house was constructed by Ramulu on a site gifted to him. The defendants argue that the plaintifl's have never resided in the village or been in possession of any of the properties for over forty years, that the suit is barred by limitation, and that tfu6, previous suit (O.S.No.6 6190) filed by plaintiffs 2 and 3 itself proves their lack of rights, as Ramulu had denied their relationship and paternity in those proceedings. 3 as_1285_2001 NBK, J

2.3 The triat Court dismissed the Suits by the impugned Common Judgment dated 26.02.2001. Challenging the judgment in O.S.No.25 of 1995, the plaintiffs filed this appeal.

3. Heard Mr. V.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs; and Mr. V.V. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for respondents No.2, 4, 5,7 and 8. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Lower Court committed a grave procedural error by recasting all issues at a belated stage, after the closure of evidence. This deprived the appellants of a full and fair opportunity to lead evidence specifically tailored to the newly framed issues, resulting in a miscarriage ofjustice. It is contended that the finding that the marriage between Appellant No. I and late BollamRamulu was dissolved in 1960 is perverse and without any evidence. The counsel emphasized that the counter filed by Ramulu in the maintenance case (M.C. No. 7411966, Ex. A-15) was a crucial admission, proving that Appellant No. 1 was his wife and Appellant No. 2 was his son. The alleged "divorce" was an unsubstantiated claim with no legal basis. The finding that Appellants No. 3 and 4 are illegitimate is equally baseless and contradicted by the same counter and the Ceiling Declaration (Ex. A-7). It is further contended that the glaring contradictions in the testimonies of DW-l to DW-4 regarding the year of the alleged marriage between Ramulu and Respondent No. 2 (Narsamma), which ranged from 1958 to 1963, and this falsifies their claim of a marriage in 1955. If the marriage was in 1955, Ramulu would have bigamously married Appellant No. 1, a fact he never pleaded. It is also contended that 'C' Schedule Property is ancestral, and not self-acquired, and the story of the 1955 unregistered sale deed (Ex. B-2) is a complete fabrication created to illegally oust the appellants from their rightful share in the ancestral property. He contended 4 as_1285_2001 . NBK,J that the VasoolBhaki record (Ex. A-1) and Faisal Patti (Ex. A-4) prove the property was ancestral, held by Bollam Ramaiah and later his sons; that the sale deed is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration and is patently suspicious-it lacks boundaries, the scribe and attesters were not examined, and its story contradicts the official revenue records; that the property dt:volved upon Bollam Lingaiah by survivorship upon the death of his brottrer Veeraiah; that the Will of 1975 (Ex. B-1) is Suspicious and Invalid and the Will is fake and fails to meet legal requirements, i.e, it is based on the false premise that the property was self-acquired, and the original dor:ument was not produced, and only a certified copy was filed, and that Rzrmulu was a literate man who signed documents, yet the Will bears a thurnb impression, raising serious doubts about its execution, and the names of the beneficiaries in the Will (Mallaiah, Jeedaiah, etc.) do not match the ar:tual names of the respondents (Parvathalu, Bheemaiah, etc.). It is also contr:nded that non-joinder is not fatal to the case of appellants, as the propertJ, in dispute was specifically pleaded as the share of Bollam Ramulu, anrl the other heirs of the joint family were not necessary parties for adjudicating the rights to this specific share. It is contended that the additional e'ridence (the unregistered Will of 1968, settlement deeds, etc.), are vital to s,ecure justice and prove the appellants' continuous relationship with Bollam Ramulu.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants contends that the decision of trial Court to recast issues was done to crystallize the actual points in controversy and was a proper exercise of the court's power under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC. Both sides were heard, and no prejudice wars caused. It is contended that the findings on marital status, relying heavily on the written statement filed by Bollam Ramulu himself in O.S. No. 66/1990 (Ex. B-8). In this document, Ramulu unequivocally 5 as_1285_2001 NBI(, J stated that he married Respondent No. 2 (Narsamma) in 1955 and that Respondents 3 to 8 were their children. This contemporaneous admission by the deceased himself was argued to be the best evidence, outweighing all other claims. Theseparation of Appellant No. I since 1960 was clearly pleaded and proved. It is also contendedthat 'C' Schedule Property is Self- Acquired via Ex. B-2, the 1955 Sale Deed (Ex. B-2), though unregistered, is admissible to prove the nature of possession and the transaction- He contended that BollamRamulu purchased the property with his own earnings from working as a farm servant. This purchase was later validated and the title regulanzed under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land &Pattadar Pass Books Act,l97L It is contended that the Will of 1975 (Ex- B-t) is Valid and Conclusive, and the counsel argued that the Registered Will is a solemn document executed 25 years prior to the suit and it carries a presumption of regularity. The attestation was proved, and the contents are rational, bequeathing self-acquired property to the wife and children who lived with and cared for the testator, and therefore the minor discrepancy of a thumb impression instead of a signature was inconclusive proof of fraud. It is also contended that the suit was not maintainable, and the appellants' own case acknowledged a larger joint family and the partition suit cannot proceed without impleading all co-parceners, including the brother Narsimha and his sons, as their rights would be directly affected. Learned counsel vehementty opposed the application to admit additional evidence, contending that thedocuments (1968 Will, etc.) are forgeries, and fake documents created for the purpose of this appeal, as they were never mentioned in the pteadings or in the previous suit (O.S. No. 6611990) despite being allegedly in existence and therefore their introduction at this late stage is an afterthought and an abuse of process. 6 as_1285_2001 - NBKJ

6. The appellants / plaintiffs have mainly raised the following grounds challenging the trial court's judgment:

6.1 That the trial Court's judgment is contrary to law and facts; that the lou,er court erred in.recasting issues after the closure of evidence, causing substantial injustice; that the failure of trial Court to frame proper issues resulted in a failure ofjustice; that the findings against the plaintiffs cannot be justified in law; that the adverse findings are the result of improper appreciation of evidence and the reasons for adverse findings are not cogent in law; that the evidence was not considered in the proper perspective of the pleadings. Referring to specific issues framed by the trial Court, the plaintiffs challenged issue No.1 contending that there was no evidencr: for the dissolution of marriage in 1960 (thereby the finding that plaintilfs 3 and 4 are illegitimate is not proper finding); and for issue No.2, the finding that the Znd defendant's marriage was prior is anachronistic and without evidence (thereby there is no evidence to support D3-D8's legitimacy); and for issue No.3, the Ex.B2 sale deed is inadmissible (thereby the story of purchase from Veeraiah is implausible based on pcdigree and dates); and for issue No.4, the Ex.Bl-Will was not proved according to law, and it is a certified copy of a document with a thumb impression despite the executant being literate (thereby the finding is baseless); and for issue No.5, the lower court's finding on the invalidity of the sale to D2 was not considered while granting relief; and for issue No.6, the finding that the 'E' schedule house is joint family property was not considered while granting relief; and for issue No.7, the finding against the plaintifts on rights and due to non-joinder is incorrect; and for Issue No.8, the finding against possession was without proper consideration of evidence, a. crucial error; and for Issue No.9, the finding on court fee is a mixed question of law and fact and is incorrect ifpossession is proved; that 7 as_1285_2001 NB&J the lower court was not justified in dismissing the suit; that there was no reason to disbelieve PWl , PWz, and Ex.Al-Al4; that the evidence of DWl-DW6 does not inspire confidence, nor do Ex.Bl-B3; that the court should have summoned the first plaintiff; additional evidence (Ex.Al6 to A20) must be received.

7. At the outset, it may be noted that with regard to the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs, the trial court found that the first plaintiff (the alleged widow) did not testiff. Her testimony was crucial to prove the marriage was not dissolved and that BotlamRamulu had access to her for the birth of plaintiffs 3 and 4. Her absence was deemed fatal to their case on legitimacy. "What made the first plaintiff not come to witness box to speak that the marriage between her and late BollamRamulu was not dissolved at any point of time is not explained." Further, the trial Court dismissed the evidence of PW-l (2"0 plaintiff) as "self-serving" and lacking personal knowledge, especially regarding ancient family history like the status of Veeraiah and family partitions. The court noted he contradicted the plaint by introducing a new character (Latchaiah), damaging his credibitity. Further, the trial Court dismissed the testimony of PW-2 (Narsimha, brother of lst plaintiff), as not independbnt, stating "it is natural for him to speak the plaintiffs case." His vested interest undermined his reliability. Further, the plaintiffs relied on maintenance case documents (Ex.A-14 and Ex.A-15) to prove marriage, however, the trial Court highlighted that in the counter (Ex.A-15), BollamRamulu explicitly pleaded divorce in 1960, by further observing that the plaintiffs were "blowing hot and cold" by asking the court to believe only the parts of the document that suited them. Further, the trial Court found the Ceiling Declaration (Ex.A-7), which showed the third plaintiffs name, to be outweighed by Ramulu's direct and repeated denials of patemity in legal 8 as_1285_2001 NBK, J s pleadings; and that the Protected renancy records (Ex.A-2, A-3, A-4) were accepted but only to show that Bollam Lingaiah (the grandfattrer) was the tenant, not that the plaintiffs had current possession or rights. Further, the trial Courr. repeatedly noted that the plaintiffs did not examine any independent witnesses from the village (Boyagubba) to support their claims of living there or enjoying the properties, which was a major flaw in their case lbr possession; and they also failed to examine Narsimha or his son (Ramulu's brother and nephew), who would have been crucial witnesses t,l prove the alleged partition within the family.

7.1 with regard to the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants, the court found the defendants' evidence to be consistent, corroborated, and backed by admissions from the deceased himself that DWs I to 6 (2nd defendant, her children, and independent villagers) to be "rustic witnesses" whose testimony was clear and consistent on the core fact: that the second defendant was married to Ramulu, their children were legitimate, ;a.rd they had always lived on and possessed the properties; the trial Court rlismissed minor discrepancies in their ages as insignificant for "illiterate artd rustic witnesses.". Further, the single most evidence against the plaintiffs was Bollam Ramulu's own written statement from the previous suit (o.S.No.66190), wherein Ramulu admitted marrying the second defendant after his first wife's death, and denied the paternity of the third plaintiff, and admitted purchasing the C-schedule property from veeraiah (lix.B-2), admitted executing the will (Ex.B-l) in favor of defendants :l to 8; and the trial Court reasoned that these admissions, made in a prior ju'Jicial proceeding, were highly credible and conclusive and this evidence directly validated the defendants' entire case. Further, the court applied the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act to the defendants' documents, particularly the sale deed (Ex.B-2), as it was 9 as_1285_2001 NBK,.' over 30 years old and produced from proper custody; and the Will (Ex.B- 1) was accepted because, even though the attestors were dead, its execution was admitted by the testator (Ramulu) himself in his prior written statement. The court dismissed objections about a thumb impression instead of a signature and a minor survey number error as inconsequential. Further, the consistent testimony of all defense witnesses that the plaintiffs never lived in the village and that the defendants were in long-term possession was accepted, and this directly contradicted the plaintiffs' claim for injunction, which requires proof of existing possession.

8. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it is to be noted that the Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits a court to amend issues at any time before judgment to ensure the real questions in controversy are decided.

8.1 With regard to the ground on Recasting of Issues (grounds 2 and 3), it may be noted that the recasting of issues by the trial court after hearing both sides was a procedural step at crystallizing the actual points of contention that emerged from the evidence, which is a process within the court's discretion to ensure a decision on the merits, and the appellants have not shown how this exercise prejudiced their case.

8.2 With regard to appreciation of evidence and recording of findings (i.e., grounds [ , 4, 5, 6, 7 , 17 , 18, 19,20), it may be noted that the trial court's findings are not merely possible views but are the most probable conclusions drawn from an overall assessment of the entire evidence. The court rightly inclined towards the defendants' evidence, which was consistent, corroborated by admissions of the deceased (Bollam Ramulu), and supported by contemporary documents. The plaintiffs' evidence, in contrast, was inconsistent, hearsay, and the bereft of testimony of key evidence i.e., first plaintiffs testimony 10 as-1285_2001 N8I( J g. Further, with regard to issue No'l' the trial court's finding on the first plaintifl's failure to testiff cannot be questioned as her testimony was indispensable to prove that the marriage subsisted and that BollamRamulu hadaccesstoherforthebirthofplaintiffs3and4;andherabsencefor testifying re,mained unexplained' The court correctly relied on Bollam Ramulu's ovrn admissions in his counter (Ex'Al5) and written statement in O.S.No.66/90 (Ex.B8), where he pleaded divorce in 1960 and consistently denied the paternity of the third plaintiff' The presumption under Section 1,12 of the f]vidence Act was rightly not invoked due to the specific denial and the availability of the mother (first plaintiff) to rebut it' which she did not do. The additional documents (Ex'Al6-A18) are unpleaded' and do not inspire confidence to overtum this finding 9'1 Further, with regard to issue No'2 (on the legitimacy of D2 and D3-Dti), the trial Court's finding was based on evidence, rvherein the most crucial evidence is Bollam Ramulu's own written statement (Ex.BS) in O'S'No'66/90' where he categorically states hemarriedtheseconddefendant(Narsamma)inlg55andhadchildren D3-D8 with her. g.2 Further, DW1 to Dw4, including independeni witnesses from the village,, consistently testified to the long-standing marriage and cohabitation between BollamRamulu and the second defendant; and the defendants.continuouspossessionandresidenceinthesuitvillagefor decades corroborates their status as the family; and minor discrepancies in the exact year of marriage among rustic witnesses are inconsequential. The finding that this marriage was prior to any association with the first plaintiffis a logical inference from the evidence and the timeline ofevents' 9.3 With regard to issue No'3 on the Nature of 'C'-Schedule Property (tJround 10), the trial court correctly held the property to be the 11 . as_1285_2001 NBK, }. self-acquisition of Bollam Ramulu; as Ex.B2 (Sale Deed 1955), the court rightly applied the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act to this ancient document. The defendants discharged their initial burden by producing it. Further, Bollam Ramulu, in his written statement (Ex.B8), admitted to this purchase. His subsequent conduct of executing a registered Will (Ex.Bl) in 1975, bequeathing this very property as his own, fortifies this claim.

9.4 The appellants' argument that Veeraiah died early is speculative. The documentary evidence (Ex. Al, ,A.4) showing separate entries for Lingaiah and Veeraiah supports the defendants'case of partition between the brothers, making the sale by Veeraiah to his nephew plausible. The appellants' suit was itself not maintainable for not impleading the sons of Narsimha, the other branch of the family.

9.5 On issue No.4 - i.e., Validity of the Will (Ex.Bl), while the original Will bore a thumb impression, its execution was admitted by the testator himself in his written statement (Ex.B8). This evidence outweighs the mode of execution. The Will is also a registered document, adding to its presumption of validity. The appellants' arguments_ regarding the language of the Will and survey numbers are minor and do not constitute such suspicious circumstances as to vitiate the entire document, especially in light of the testator's own admission. Since the property was correctly found to be self-acquired, the testator had absolute disposing power over it.

9.6 With regard to the 'D' and 'E' Schedule Properties, the trial court found the sale of the'D'schedule to the second defendant void under tenancy laws and the 'E' schedule house to be joint family property. These findings were in favor of the appellants. However, the suit was dismissed because the appellants failed to establish their status as legal heirs entitled to a share (Issue Nos. I & 2) and due to non-joinder of necessary parties 72 as_1285_2001 NA(.'l (sons of N;lrsimha). Therefore, the appellants cannot claim relief based on these findings alone, and hence these grounds are misconceived.

9.7 With regard to issue No.7, i.e., on the rights in properties & Non-Joindr:r of parties, this is a crucial and fatal flaw in the appellants' case. The pleadings and evidence (including Ex.Bg) show that BollamRanrulu and his brother Narsimha were co-owners of signihcant joint famill'properties. A suit for partition cannot proceed without all co- owners being made parties. The sons of Narsimha were necessary parties, and their ncn-joinder is a valid and sufficient reason for dismissing the suit.

9.8 Further, with regard to Issue Nos.g & 9, the trial court,s finding that the appellants were not in possession is based on evidence - the oral evirlence of DWI-DW6 established that the appellants lived in a different vil..age (Siripuram) for decades; and no independent witness from the suit village was examined by the appellants to prove their possession. No revenue records (voter list, ration card, cultivation records) were produced shcwing the appellants' names in relation to the suit properties. consequently, the court fee paid under the premise of.being in joint possession was correctly held to be inadequate. The injunction suit (0.5.23/96) was also rightly dismissed for failure to prove existing possession.

9.9 Further, the additional evidence sought to be produced (Ex.Al6-420 - unregistered Will, settlements, voter ID, photos) is highly belated, unpleaded in the original suits. These documents lack provenance and are of suspicious nature. The trial court cannot be faulted for not summoning the first plaintiff; it was the appellants' responsibility to examine her. The respondents' additional evidence (Ex.B5_Bg), being records from the previous suit o.S.No.66l90 which were referred to in the 13 as_1285 2001 NBK, J trial court's judgment, are merely corroborative and their admission causes no prejudice.

10. The appellants failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice or how the recasting prevented them from presenting any part of their case' Further, the findings of trial Courtare based on a critical piece of evidence: the counter-affidavit (Ex. A15) of BollamRamulu himself from 1967, wherein BollamRamuluadmitted to the initial marriage with the first appellant but explicitly stated she had livedseparately since 1960 and denied paternity of the third appellant, and this contemporaneous admission was deemed to be conclusive proof of the dissolution of the marital relationship. Further, the subsequent registered Will of 1975 (Ex. B1), which bequeathed property solely to the second respondent and her children, further supported this finding. The oral evidence of the defendants, despite minor variations on the exact year of marriage, was consistent on the core fact of the marriage andcohabitation and was therefore deemed reliable. With regard to the'C' Schedule Property and the Wilt, the trial Coun rejected the appeltants'challenge to the 1955 sale deed (Ex. B2), and while acknowledging it was unregistered, the Court held it was admissible as evidence of a collateral fact-namely, the nature of Bollam Ramulu's possession and his claim of title. This claim was consistent with his own pleadings in a previous suit (Ex. B8). The Court gave greater weight to the subsequent registered Will of 1975 (Ex' Bl), which described the property as self-acquired, purchased from Veeraiah. A registered will executed25 years prior to the dispute carries a presumption of regularity, and the appellants'technical objectionsregarding the mode of execution (thumb impression against signature) and non-production of the originalwere insufficient to rebut this presumption. With regard to Non- Joinder of Parties, the case of the defendants was supported by evidence t \ t,, NBX,I that the anr:estral property was held jointly by Bollam Ramulu and his brother Narsimha; and that the suit for partition necessarily requires all co- parceners to be impleaded as parties and the appellants' failure to bring Narsimha e.nd his heirs onto record was a flaw to the entire suit for partition. Further, the trial Court held that the documents did not meet the stringent conditions of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, as they could have been produced v,ith due diligence during the trial before, and their belated production at the appellate stage, withoutconvincing explanation, rendering tt.em suspicious and an afterthought; and the appellants therefore failed to prc,ve their case for partition on a preponderance ofprobabilities.

11. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment of the trial Court was t,ased on a coherent analysis of evidence and law, and there are no grounds for interference.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, ifany, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR Note: This order is amended as per Cou rt Order datedi2T 101 12026 vide l.A. NO.1/2026 replacing descriptions of Appellant Nos.293 and Respondent No.1 om cause title of ttre Judgment and decree. This order substitutes with the Earlier order dispatched on 1211112O25. SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda 2. One CC to SRl. V V RAMANA Advocate IOPUCI I TIl i I { I i I I I * I I i i i i

3. One CC to SRl. SAKINALA SRINIVASULU Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI V.V. NARASIIvIHA RAO, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies \ r lF I HIGH COURT DATED:10/09/202 2t7 t01t2026 AMENDEI] JUDGMENT AS.No.1285 ot 2001 -l'.. ,, ,., ' 'd0 rfffi {0t C) '( * I t DISMISSIN(] THE APPEAL q '*