O.S No. 1359 of 2002 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

purchased by the plaintiffs from Gandi Devaganikamma and Gandi Satyam under two different registered sales deed dt. 5.10.2002 and the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the properties and the defendant is trying to interfere his possession. Further facts are that one Gandi Anjaneyulu who was the original owner of the property has got two sons the defendant and the father of the plaintiffs and the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs are said to have been executed by the father of the plaintiffs and also the wife of Anajaneyulu. It was the specific plea of the defendant that the said Anjaneyulu died in the year 1997 and even during the life time of Anjaneyulu the properties were partitioned between the defendant and father of the plaintiffs and defendant has got the schedule properties to his share. Therefore, the defendant contended that the plaintiffs have no right or interest over the properties.

The courts below did not accept the contention of the defendant and decreed the suits. A.S.Nos. 64 of 2009 and 266 of 2009 filed against the judgements and decrees were also dismissed by the 1st Appellate Court. The learned Counsel for the appellant strongly contends that the lower courts have not considered the factum of partition and even if the factum of partition is not believed, the appellant will be a co-owner of the properties and consequently the suits injunction are not maintainable. It is also further pleaded that the wife of Anjaneyulu has no right to execute the sale deed and the sale deeds are only nominal deeds. Evidently, even according to the case of the defendant, during the life time of Anjaneyulu, the properties were partitioned and the father of the plaintiffs and defendant were living separately. Therefore, it clearly goes to show that there is jointness and co-ownership of family properties.

Therefore, the contention of the defendant that he is the co-owner and injunction granted against him is not tenable. The appellant has also failed to prove as to what are the other properties that have fallen to his share and the father of the plaintiffs. Evidently, after the partition, a mortgage was said to have been created by Anjaneyulu and the said debt was said to have been discharged by the father of the plaintiffs and the wife of Anjaneyulu. Though Exs:B.1 to B.10 were filed on behalf of the defendant to prove payment of money, the mortgage was in the name of Anjaneyulu and the discharge receipts were also standing in his name. There is nothing on record to show that the defendant has undertaken to discharge the debt and accordingly discharged the same. It is to be noted that the filing of receipts Exs:B.1 to B.10 will not in any way establish the case of the defendant, since those receipts were said to have been issued during the life time of Anjaneyulu.