The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO ,IANDIKONDA JUDGMENT: A.S.No.425 of 2OO7 This appeai sr-rit is filed unde r Section 96, r- .der XLI Rule I of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Appellant/ t riintiff against rhe judgment and decree passed by the III Additio r al District Judge, Karimnagar, (hereinalter relerred to 'learned trial cor rt') in O.S.No.32 of 2006, dated 03.04.2007, u,herein rhe plaintiff filec the said suit for partition of the strit schedule property and the si,I te was dismissecl. Being aggrieved bv the dismissal of the suit, the pres: -rt appeal is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaint l'is the son of the: second rvife of hi:.; father and the defendant is th: son of hrst wife. Originally, the plaintiff and the defendant are brothrr s ar-rd sons of one Mr.Nazar Mohammed ar-rd they got agricultural I Lnd admeasuring Ac.2 30 guntas in Sun ev No. 157, situated at Gur-r . rrpali, Bommakal Village. The lather of the plaintiff died in the year . , r8 1 and after the death of the father. the plaintiff and the defendant .,,ere enjoying the property jointly, though they got half share in each : ed the mother of 2 I:@,J 4F4e42E-el2o!Z the plaintiff and the mother of defendants are different and the father is one ald the same

3. Learned counsel for the appellant conte,ded that after the death of the father of the plaintiff and defendant, the defendant is not lookinq after well and his interest was not safe in his hands, therefore, the plai,tiff sought for the partition, but the defendant did not agreed for the same, as such, the suit was filed seeking partition of lhe suit schedule property.

4. The defendant filed q,ritten statement in the said suit admittinq the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant ancl lurther contended that no joint farnily is existing and they are not joint owners.

5. l,earned counsel for the defendant contended that, during the life time of the father of the plaintiff and defendaat, the partition took place and pursuant to the partition, the plaintiff a,d defendants ha'e obtained their pattedar pass books of their share and they got a well and they are sharing water equally by arranging ,.katiamoddu,, and ther: are paying the bills equally. He further contended that as the partition -) t[ts J AS.l_=125e1 2.091 already being affected, as such the question of seel< ng partition by the plaintiff does not arise and hence prayed to dismiss t re appeal.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments r ade by both the counsels, the learned trial court framed the follor.r.inr issues rvhich read as under: "t) Whethet the s.xt land is already partitiored ancl the dek r ktnt hqs rased leakuood pLattts ut his land?

2. Whellrcr the phinttff entitled to seek for partition of the prap? l!j?

3. To uhat relieJ?'

7. Initially, the suit was filed before the learned I enior Civil Judge, Karimnagar vide O.S.No.77 of 2O03 and subsequer tly the same was transferred to the court of III Additional District JtLct; e, at Karimnagar, vide O.S.No.32 of 20O6.

8. During the course of trial, the plaintiff himsel got examined as PWl and Ex.Al u,as marked and he also examinecl I W2 in support of his case. The defendant himself got examined as DV/ , and also DWs2 to DW6 and marked Ex.B1 to 89.

9. After going into the merits of the case and hearir g the parties, the learned trial court came to conclusion that the parl tion took placed 4 rv]W.J AS.No.425 of 2OO7 between the plaintiff ar-rd defendant during the life time of their father and trx.B 1 and Ex.R9 u,ere pattedar passbook ald title deed u,as given in favour ol the delendant and plaintiff and they are enjoying their respecLive shares since the partition.

10. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed on the follou'ing grounds by the plaintiff. Learned counsei for the plaintiff contended that the rearned tnar court did not considered the evidence in proper perspective and did not appreciate the photographs hled by the plai.tiff and erroneously came to conclusion that the plaintiff fa ed to proof his case and also did not consider the evidence of pwl & pw2 *rhich establishes the fact that no partition took place as contended bv the defendant. In the evidence of pwsr & 2 which crearly estabiishes the case of the plaintiff and there was no rebuttar evidence placed by the defendant' He further contended that the learned trial court taking the evidence of the defendant has came to wrong concrusion that partition took place and dismissed the suit. I 1. Heard Mr.M.W.R.Jayakar, learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff and Mr.M.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the res pond en t / d efed an t. ./ -/ w 5 |a4.1 AS.iro.425 of ?OOa

12. The points u,hich arose for consideration b<: lre thls Court are that; Whether there was anA partition took place in 'etween the parttes as contended bg tlrc defendant, if trot, tuhether the 1;l tinttff is entitled for the reLief of partition as proyed for? Wlrcther the judgment and decree passed by tl'., trial court is liable to be set aside? If so, to uhat relieJ?

13. The Points u'hich arose before this Court fol consideration are interlinked, AS such, this Court is inclined to de< ide all the points together. Point No. 1.

74. The main grievance of the appellant before this Court is that the learneci trial court without considering the evidence , f the plaintiff has came to erroneous conclusion that the partition tool clace between the plaintitf arld the defendant and the dismissed the sur 1 5. Before going into the aspect of rvhether the par: tion took place or not, it is and admitted fact that the plaintiff and lre defendant are brothers and they are the sons of one Mr.Nazar Molr rmmed. It is also not in dispute that their father was holding all rgricultural land 6 (' IVl4.1 AS.I,to.425 of 2007 admeasuring Ac.2-30 guntas in Survey No.157, situated at Gunturpali, Bommakal vi1lage. It is arso not in dispute that the father of the praintiff and defendant died in the vear 19g I . 16 The contention of the petitioner before this court is that there was no partition that took place as on this date and the plaintiff and the defendant are in joint familr'. It is lurther contended that the defendant made an application \r'ith rahsitdar and was abre to manage the revenue ofhcials and obtained the pattedar passbook. The plaintiff and defendant did not grve any joint application before Mandal Revenue Officer 17 ' Learned counsel for the apperlant argued that DW2 does not knorv u'here the suit schedule land is situated including the boundaries. He pointed out that DW2 e'en did not know the survey number of the suit land. DW2 to DW6 deposed that the partition took place during the life time of the father of the plaintiff and defendant a,d they were enjoying the property together. He further contended that the documents fired by the defendant do not show that there r.r.as any partition took place. 7 l4&.1 a5.M_429 e12997 lB Learned counsel for the respondent/clefendar. has hlecl the gist oi his arguments and contended that the partition t,r rl< place cluring the lifctime of their father in 197 6 and rhey are usr: j u,ater cqually by arranging katlamoddu. It is also contended b1 he defe.dant that delendant produced Ex.sB I & 89 the pattedar pas;:, ook and Ex.89 the title deed issued in his name. He further contendcrl rhat the defendant has placed before the trial court the relevant corres rondence of banks lor loerns u'hich he obtained for his share of lancl s rhe said aspect of the dclendant obtai,ing Ex.B I pattedar passbook i, :spect of his sr-rare is not being deniecl by the plaintiff.

19. Per contra, it is the case of the praintiff tha the said pattedar passbook w,as obtained by the defendant by mana 3 ng the concerned Tahsildar and v'ithout there being any joint applic, ,ion made by the plaintiff ald defendant. It is a-lso an admitted facl L rat the clefendant has obtained the loans on his lands from various t: nks and it is not denied by the ptaintiff.

20. It is also pointed out by the learned counser for t re defenclant that the PW2 was cross examined on behalf of the praintri r and he admitted in his evidence about the issua,ce or pattedar passb: rk and title deed B 4€ .No.425 AIiIR.J of 2007 in favour of the defendant and it is vehementry argued that after the partition took place between the plarntiff and defendant, as such the defendant has obtained the pattedar passbook which shows the partition among the parties. He also contended that in support of the evidence of DWl, he examined DW2 to DW6 who are the neighbors and who have deposed as to the factum of the partition betrveen the parties. He contended by producing the evidence of DW2 to DW6 and trx.B1 and trx.89 the pattedar passbook and the title deed would substantiate his defence that the partition took prace. He also argued and contended that plaintiff did not hie aly documents to substantiate his contention that the partition did not took prace a,d the prbperty is stil joint property. 21 . on perusal of the entire materials and evidence praced before this court and the documents fired, it is the specirrc case of the defenda,t in his evidence that in the year r9z 6, tt'e father distributed the suit schedule property between the plaintiff and defendant during his lifetime and they are cultivating their respective shares and that he arso obtained agriculture loans from banks at Karimnagar and in the year 2oo2 he plahtea teakwood plants and in the year 2003 the praintiff 9 jac,J As..r!a.14_9L29QZ thro*,n out the teaku,ood plants and for which ree 1 on defenrlant lodge :r police complaint and the police have warne : the plaintiff frorn interlering u,itl-r the defendant,s land.

22. on perusal of the cross examination, it shc, 's that the partitior-r took place in between the plaintiff and defendant .n o l.o l. 19g2 ancl nothi.g has been elicitecl to dispute the contents rl the chief affidavrr, and also the documents rvhich are hled by the clel ndernt irr respect o- pattcdar passbook and title deed.

23. On perusal of the cross examination of D\,\ _ and DW3, it also reveal thaL rh e partition took place and the father rf the plaintiff and defendant partitioned the property between then-r rnci it is about 20 years no\\, and the defendant is raising paddy. The . ider-rce ol DWI and the pattedar passbook and title deed issued by rl e corcerned MRo would clearly, shorv that there was a partition that tr,, k place and Ex.B I and 89 would clearly show that there is severance o status among the parties as contended by the defendant.

24. ln view of the same and a_lso in terms of the j r lgment passed by the trial court w'hich shows that having considerecr r -re entire materiar 10 r i$41 As.tto.42s oJ 2OO7 place on record have rightly came to conclusion that the partition took place among the parties and clearly establishes the severance of status arnong the parties and once the partition took place, the prayer of the plaintiff seeking the partition once again does not arise. lt is a-lso not the case of the plaintiff that there is no equal partition arnong them. In the absence of any such contention and the ora-l and documentary evidence placed by the defendant, this Court does not find any error committed bv the trarl court in dismissing the suit

25. In the result, the points are ansu,ered in favour of the respor-rdent and against the piaintiff. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed

26. Considering the relationship of the parties, they shall bear thetr ou,n costs Misceilaleous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. SD/.T.VIJAY KUMAR DEpUTy REGIST!4E -^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The lll Additional Diskict Judge, K 2. One CC to Sri M W R Jayakar, Ad 3. One CC to Sri M Madhava Reddy. 4. Two CD Copies arimnagar (with records if any) vocate [OPUC] Advocate [OpUC] M AllK/psl HIGH COURT DATED: 2110812025 JUDGMENT AS.No.425 of 2007 I o HE STA 2s lrlt 2925 z T FEpnil *, DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS L 1( (" I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA FIRST APPEAL NO: 425 OF 2007 Between: Shaik Ahmed, S/o Nasar Mohammed, Aged 39 Gunturpalli Grampanchayath, Karimnagar Mandal and yrs, Occ Labour District. R/o ...Ap pella n UPla intiff AND Mohammed afzal, S/o Nasar Mohammed, Aged 50 yrs, Occ Contractor in Godhavarikhani Depot R/o Guntupalli H/o Bommakal Village Karimnagar Diskict and Mandal. ...RespondenUDefendant Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., Order XLI Rule 1 of the C.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 03-04-2007 passed in O.S.No.32 of 2006 on the flle of the lll Additional District Judge, 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 rnaterial papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M W R Jayakar, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri M Madhava Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirmtng the Judgment and Decree dated 03-04-2007 passed in O S No.32 of 2006 by the lll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. 2 That parties shall bear their own costs. SO/.T.VIJAY KUMAR D PUTY REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY// SE ION OFFICER To,

1. The lll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar 2. Two CD Copies ABK/PSI- W HIGH COURT DATED: 21lOBl2O25 DECREE AS.No.425 of 2007 DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS 1b \b