High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS I to 5 and 7 to 10' R12 and R13 Respondents 5 Jadcherla manda I, IA NO: 10F 2024 Between:

1. M. Suvarna, Wo Venkatesh, aged about 40 years, Rl/o H No'3-12-152/1' Veerannapet, Mahdbubnagar town and District

2. M.Balnagaiah, s/f Pedda Munnaiah, aged about 56 parthy Taluq, tvl ThirumalaiPallY, Khillaghanpur lvlandal, Wana District.

3. M.Santhosh Kum I aI S/o Balnagaiah, aged about 29 parthy Taluq, t\tl ThirumalaipallY, Khilla ghanpur Mandal, Wana District. years, ahabub Fi/o years, ahabub R/o

4. Srinivauslu, S/o alnagaiah, aged about 25 years, Fl./o ThirumalaiPallY, Khillaghanpur Mdndal, WanaPa rthy Taluq, Mahabubnagar District Respo ndents/P laintiffs. I ...PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4

1. Ramachand years, Fl/o J ^rl ra Reddy S/o adcherlb X Ro I Raghunath Reddy, (died) his L.Rs.aged about 65 ads, Mahabubnagar District- ......RESPONDENT/ APPELLANT {"

2. Srinivasulu, S/o La Sayanna aged about 50 Years, 3. Kurmaiah,-S/o LatelSayanna, aged about 47 years, 4. Krishnaiah, S/o Lat! Sayanna, (died) 5. Chenna Keshavulu 6. Pentamma, Wo lat 7. Bheemamma, Wo 8. Kavitha, D/o Late 9. Kalyan, S/o Late I S/o tat" Sayanna, aged about 44 yeats, L Sayanna, (died) Late Krishnaiah, aged about 39 years, tlrishnaiah, aged about 24Years, Klshnaiah, aged about 1 7 years' (Minor)

10. Kamakar, S/o late rishnaiah , aged about 1 years, (tvlinor) Petition under Se on 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 5 TO 13 in the affidavit filed in sdpport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orde{ passed by this Hon'ble Court in AS No 265 of 2019 I I I dated 17.06.2019 and dismiss the same with costs. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under S ion 151 CPC praylng that in the circumstances stated I port of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To in the affidavit filed in su stay all further proceedirlgs pursuant to the decree and judgement in OS.NO.26 of 2O12dated.05-03-20tb on the file of the ll Additional District Judge(FTC) FAC Vll Additional District J JOge, VanaUubnagar including the passing of the final It decree pending disposa the above appeal Counsel for the Respon ents 1 to 4: Sri A. Sai Chakravarthy : Sri P Ganga Rami Reddy Counsel for the Appella 1,. I The Court delivered thetIlowing JUDGMENT: THE HON,BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA APPEAL SUIT No.265 of 2OL9 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, learned counsei for the. appellant and Sri A. Sai Chakravarthy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant No.6 aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned II Additional District Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar, d.ated

05.03.20 19 in O.S.No.26 of 2072, whereby the suit for partition and separate possession filed by the respondent Nos.l to 4/ plaintiffs has been decreed allotting L I 6th share to respondent No. 1 /plaintiff No. 1, 1/6tr share to respondent Nos.3 and 4/plaintiff Nos.3 and 4, 1/6h share each to respondent Nos.S, 6 and 8/defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and lastly, 1/6tit share to respondent Nos. 10 to l3/defendant Nos.7 to 10.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.26 of 2072.

4. The suit was hled by the plaintiffs seeking 1/6ft share in the property consisting of Ac.3.O0 gts. of dry land in Sy.No.2S/ 1 within limits of Badepally Village of Jadcherla Mandal, ./ \ \ 2 Mahabubnagar District (here inafter referred as 'suit .schedule propertyJ. Sayanna who is original owner of suit schedule property died intestate. The plaintiff No.l and her iate sister Yadamma are daughters of Late Sayanna. Yadamma died' Said Late Yadamma's husbald is plaintiff No.2 and sons are plaintiff Nos.3 and 4. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are sons of Late Sayanna and defendant No.S is the wife of Late Sayanna. Defendant No'6 is the purchaser who purchased suit schedule property from defendant Nos. 1 to 4 by way of registered sale deed dated

05.01.2008 vide document No.496 of 20O8. Defendant No 5 died during pendency of the suit. Defendant No.4 also died during pendency of the suit and his legal heirs were brought on record as defendant Nos.7 to 1O'

5. The plaintiffs hled the suit alleging that the suit schedule property was purchased by Late Sayanna under a private sale deed dated 10.05.1972 and has been in peaceful possession and enjoy,rnent of his self-acquired propert5r. After the death of Late Sayanna, the property has been in joint possession of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.l to 5. When the plaintiffs sought partition, defendant Nos. 1 to 5 denied to partition and allot separate share to the plaintiffs, leading to filing of the suit under appeal. After hling of the suit, defendalt Nos. I to 4 who 3 are siblings plaintiff No. 1 and brothers-in-law to plaintiff No.2 admitted the relationship but denied right of the plaintiffs to allotment of a share in the suit schedule property on the premise that plaintiff No.l and Late yadamma were married in the year 1983 by spending huge amount of money and by giving gold and silver ornaments. Ever since marriage, since the marriages were performed by giving money and gold ornaments, according to defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 5, plaintiffs are not entitled to any share. In addition, defendant Nos.1 and 2 pleaded that they have taken loan from defendant No.6 and therefore, nominally executed promissory note and registered sale deed dated 05.O1.2008 in favour of defendant No.6 with an understanding to redeliver the propert5r after payment of entire money with interest. As such, neither the plaintiffs nor defendant No.6 have any right over the suit schedule property.

6. According to defendant No.6, the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are the owners of the suit schedule property having purchased the same from the erstwhile vendor through a simple sale deed and got validated the same under the provisions of Record of Rights Act, 7971. The said property is conveyed by defendant Nos.l to 4 in favour of defendant No.6 on 05.Ol.2OO8. The propert5z was never purchased by late Sayanna. There is no documentary 4 proof to show that plaintiff No 1 and Late Yadamma are daughters of Late Sayanna and therefore, neither the plaintiffs' nor the defendalt Nos.l to 4 have any rights over the suit schedule property. Defendant No 6 has been in possession of the suit schedule property ever since its purchase in the year 2008 and therefore, the court fee paid by the plaintiffs is insuffrcient and the suit is liable to be dismissed on said grounds. 7 . On the basis of rival pleadings, the learned II Additibnal District Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the suit schedule ProPerties as PraYed for? 2) Whether the hrst plaintiff and Yadamma ceased to be members of joint family consequently the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are also not members of the joint family? 3) Whether the suit schedule properties are purchased by late Sayanna vrith his own funds or not? 4) Whether D-3 and D-4 contacted debt from defendant No.6? 5) Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiffs are correct or not? 6) Whether the defendant No.6 is purchaser of the sit property and he is in enjoyment and property is not availabie for Partition? 5 7) To what reiieP

8. Upon considering the Issue No.3 with respect to purchase of the suit schedule propert5r by Late Sayanna, the learned II Additional District Judge (FTC) decided it in favour of plaintiffs holding that Late Sayanna purchased the suit schedule property under a private sale deed in the year 1972, more particularly on LO.O5.I9Z2. Thereafter, the Issue Nos. I and 2 with respect to plaintiffs entitlement to the partition of suit schedule property, alternatively as to whether the plaintiffs and Late Yadamma's legal heirs ceased to be members joint family property, it is answered that the relationship is undisputed and that there is no evidence about the performing marriages by giving huge amount of money, gold and silver ornaments and therefore, held that the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and allotment of separate share. More particularly, it is held that the suit schedule property was not partitioned after the death of Sayanna among his legal heirs under Section g of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, therefore, after the death of late Sayanna, as per admissions of defendant Nos. 1 to 4, the plaintiff No. 1, defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 are eltitled for a share in the suit schedule property being Class-l lejal heirs. 6 g. With respect to issue No.4 about whether defendant Nos'3 and 4 have contacted debts, it is not answered and held that same is not necessa-ry for the adjudication of the suit' The Issue Nos.S and 6 with respect to whether the court fee paid by the plaintiffs is incorrect and whether defendant No 6 is purchaser of the suit schedule property and he is in enjoyment of the same, they are answered in favour of both the plaintiffs as well as defendant No.6 to the effect that the sharers of a joint property would have possession over every inch of land in the joint property. Though tJ e possession of defendant No'6 is admitted, since right of the plaintiffs is not extinguished' the plaintiffs are in constructive possession of the suit schedule property and therefore, court fee paid is held to be sufficient' In view of the aforementioned findings, the suit is decreed in share to plaintiff No' 1' favour of the plaintiffs allotting 1/6ft 1/6tn share to plaintiff Nos.3 and 4, I16il' share each to defendant Nos.l, 2 and 4 and 1/66 share to defendant Nos'7 to 10. In view of the fact that defendant Nos l to 4 sold the property to defendant No.6, their shares were directed to be adjusted in favour of defendant No'6 while drawing the hnal decree with a compact block of shares allotted to defendant I . No.6 ) 7 the pendency of the appeal, the 10. During appellant/defendant No.6 died and appellant Nos'2 to 5 are brought on record as legal representatives of deceased appellant/ defendan t No.6.

11. During arguments in appeal, learned counsel for the LRs of deceased defendant No.6 contended that the sale deed dated 10.05.1972 shows that the suit schedule property was jointly purchased by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and is validated under the provisions of ROR Act.

12. According to appellant, the plaintiff No 1 and Late Yadamma got married much earlier to the filing of the suit and therefore, they are not members of the joint family and therefore, they cannot claim allotmenl of 2 / 6h share More particularly, it is contended that defendant Nos.l to 4 have partitioned the property with Ac.O.3O gtS. each and their names are mutated in ROR in the year 1989. Defendant Nos'l to 4 enjoyed the suit schedule property until it was sold to defendant No.6 in the year 2OO8. The partition among defendant Nos'1 to 4 took place much prior to Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act' 2OO5 came into force and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. Further, it is argued that the- I \ -t i 8 plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are not in possession of the suit schedule property and therefore, the court fee paid under Section 3aQl of the Telangana Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act is not correct. The defendant No.6 is bonafide purchasei of the suit schedule property in the year 20O8, his name is mutated in the ROR records, patta passbook and title deed are issued in his name and therefore, there is no justification for the plaintifls to claim share in the suit schedule property. According to appellant, the plaintiff No. 1 ald legal heirs of Late yadamma ceased to be members of joint family property.

13. In response, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.6 is of the year 2OO8 i.e. after Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2OO5 came into force and therefore, said alienation does not preclude partition. It is argued that defendant Nos.l to 4 have alienated the property in favour of defendant No.6 without the consent of daughters i.e. plaintiff No. I and the legai heirs of Late yadamma i.e. plaintiff No.2 to 4. It is argued that the suit schedule property does not belong to defendant Nos. 1 to 4 as it is not their self-acquired property but ancestral property. Since, the suit schedule property is ancestral property, the plaintiffs are 1 ) e+titled to a share as Class-I legal heirs. ) -"'" 9

14. By way of reply of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are recognized as pattadars and therefore, the daughters are not shown as . vendors in the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.6.

15. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and othersl, wherein, it is discussed about the coparcenary and Hindu joint family property. It is held that if the daughter is alive on the date of enforcement of the Amendment Act i.e. 09.09.2OO5, she becomes a coparcener with effect from said date irrespective of whether she was born before the said amendment. It is further held that provisions in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act confer status of coparcener on daughter born before or after the amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities.

16. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4/plaintiffs referred to the judgment of the Honlcle Supreme court of India in the matter of Prakash and others vs. ( \ ' lzozoy o scc r I h l0 Phulavati and others2, wherein, it is held that thg Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 applies only when both coparcener and his daughter are alivp. on the date of commencement of Amendment Act i'e 09'09'20O5' He further referred to the judgment of this Court in the matter of Vadla Balaswamy vs. V. Suvarna3 with respect to rights of coparcener under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act' wherein' legal ratio in case of Vineeta Sharma (supra lt is reiterated and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Prakash (Supra 2) has been revised'

17. From the oral as well as documentary evidence let in by the parties, Late Sayanna died prior to mutation of names of defendantNos.lto4inrevenuerecordsintheyear1990'Even prior to his death, her daughter Yadamma died' However' the judgment of Vineeta Sharma (supra lf has retrospective applicability and it extents the benefit of the 2005 amendment to daughters, even if the daughter had predeceased the father before the amendment came into effect' Hence' the surviving plaintiff No. 1 as well the legal heirs of a predeceased daughter 1 \ I \ '(2016) 2 scc a6 r 2022 Lawsuit ( ts) I 102 \ l.e plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 are entitled to a share in the ancestral property

18. It is proven by oral and documentary cvidence that Late Sayanna purchased the suit schedule property in the year 7972, the same is the joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.l to 5. Such being the case, the alienations made prior to 09.O9.2005 are not disturbed for the purpose of partition. In view of the enforcement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 w.e.f . 09.O9.20O5, the alienations subsequent thereof in favour of defendant No.6 i.e. in the year 20O8 is not saved. The plaintifls ought to have been jorned as vendors while executing registered sale deed in favour of defendant no.6 under Ex.B1. Further, the partition claimed by appellants between defendant Nos. I to 4 and recording of their names as pattadars does not stand judicial scrutiny as said partition is not effected through a registered partition deed. In the circumstances, the suit schedule property purchased by Late Sayanna has to be divided and the shares allotted by the learned II Additional District Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar vide impugned judgment dated 05.03.2019 in O.S.No.26 of 2072 is in conformit5r with the law of the land and therefore, cannot be interfered with. / / t2 In the resuit, the Appeal Suit is dismissed' No order as to t9. COStS. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed ,TTRUE COPY'/ To, i$4ffi*-:itxa':i-# VH R, ,,33i{REBi!"+[Xh SECTION OFFICER Additional District Judge at toPUCl PUCI HIGH COURT DATED: 0410412025 \ JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.265 of 2019 oTAT 5 o o t$ \tq'tli,i r [)i:,i'r -:=-;: ' -- DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS (- adPkh IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 1 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA APPEAL SUIT NO: 265 OF 2019 Between:

1. Ramachandra Reddy Sio Raghunath Reddy, (died) his L.Rs.aged about 65 years, Fyo Jadcheda X Roads, Mahabubnagar District.

2. B. Srivani Wo Late Ramachandra Reddy, aged about 56 years 3. Mannem Akhila Reddy W/o M. Santosh Reddy, aged about 35 years, Rep by GPA holder B. Raghunath Reddy S/o Late Ramachandra Reddy, aged about 3'1 years,

4. M. Nikhila Reddy Wo M. Arun Reddy, aged about 34 years, 5. B. Raghunath Reddy S/o Late Ramachandra Reddy, aged about 31 years, All are R/o H.No.3-6-361-23, Street No.20, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabasd- 500 029. ...PETITIONERS/PROPOSED L.R.s AND 1 M. Suvama, W/o M.Venkatesh, aged about 40 years, Rl/o H.No.3-12-15211, Veerannapet, Mahabubnagar town and District. M.Balnagaiah, S/o Pedda Munnaiah, aged about 56 years, R/o Thirumalaipally, Khillaghanpur Mandal, Wanaparthy Taluq, Mahabubnagar District. 2

3. M.Santhosh Kumar, S/o Balnagaiah, aged about 29 years, Fl/o Thirumalaipally, Khillaghanpur Mandal, Wanaparthy Taluq, Mahabubnagar District.

4. Srinivauslu, S/o Balnagaiah, aged about 25 years, Rl/o Thirumalaipally, Khillaghanpur Mandal, Wanaparthy Taluq, Mahabubnagar District. RespondentsiPlaintiffs.

5. Srinivasulu-, S/o Late Sayanna aged about 50 years, 6. Kurmaiah, S/o Late Sayanna, aged about 47 years, 7. Krishnaiah, S/o Late Sayanna, (died) 8. Chenna Keshavulu, S/o Late Sayanna, aged about 44 yearc, 9. Pentamma, Wo late Sayanna, (died) '10. Bheemamma, Wo Late Krishnaiah, aged about 39 years,

11. Kavitha, D/o Late Krishnaiah, aged about 24 yearc, .i I - r-/

12.Kalyan, S/o Late Krishnaiah, aged about 17 years, (Minor) 'l3.Kamakar, S/o late Krishnaiah, aged about 15 years, (Minor) R12 and R13 both are Minors rep by their Guardian Respondent No.10. Respondents 5 to 13 all are Fyo Pathabazar, Harijanwada, Badepally, Jadcherla mandal, Mahabubnagar District. .RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1 to 5 and 7 to 10. Appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 05-03-2019 in O.S.No.26 ot 20'12 on the file of the ll Additional District Judge(FTC) FAC Vll Additional Diskict Judge at Mahabubnagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, Advocate for the appellants and Sri A. Sai Chakravarthy, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Appeal Suit be and hereby is dismissed; and

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD.ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR T SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The ll Additional District Judge(FTC) FAC Vlt Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar. ) 2. Two CD Copies vH YY {.\lE S14 I6, ( .(. Qr'' ?,.,'r 3- 2 B riii Z!:5. ,E d' 'a. .cD I HIGH COURT DATED: 0410412025 DECREE AS.No.265 of 2019 ,) DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS L{.,dta #t*