The High Court · 2025

...Respondents / Respondents / Defendants Appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 11-10-2022 made in A.S.No.30 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Adilabad, preferred against the Order passed in O.S.No.12 of 2014 ated 28_12_2018 on the fik dilabad District ,rre of th€ Court of the Junior Civil A Judge Court, Boath, ORDER: i t I the Ju and u Appefl This appeal coming on for heanng and upon perusing the dgment and Decree of the Lo w€r Court and the material pon hearing the arguments of Mr Rudresh Deshpande ant and of Mr KondadiAjay mar, Advocate for Responden tNos.7&8 grounds of appeal, papers in the case Advocate for the Ku This Court doth Order and de That the Second Ap 2 That there shall be 1 cree as follows:_ peal be and hereby is dismissed; and no order as to costs in this appeal; //TRUE COPYII "?1i,"*'#JAyAIX, To, +#iiil:f"fl f,jrnJi:ss:,,f fl har#Bi!,?r", 6 VA CT'ON OFFICER I I { J i I I b i Pd l,r I p14 r \ HIGH COURT DATED:061O112025 DECREE SA.No.187 ot 2024 DISMISSING THE APPEAL 't(' IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY T\A/O THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI SECOND APPEAL NO: 187 OF 2024 Appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgrnent and Decree dated 11-10-2022 made in A.S.No.30 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the principal District Judge, Adilabad, preferred against the Order passed in O.S.No.12 of 2014 dated 28-12-2018 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge Court, Boath, Adilabad District. Between: Sriramulu Galgawa, Wo. Narsaiah, Aged about 69 years, Occ- Household, Rl./o. Manmad Village, District Adilabad - ...Appellant / Appetlant / Plaintiff AND 1. Kumbaji lndira, Wo. Pedda Bapu Rao, Age 56 years, Occ- Household, R/o Sonala village, Mandal Boath, District Adilabad

2. Kumbaji Laxmi, Wo Pedda Bapu Rao, Age 66 years, Occ- Household, Rlo Sonala village, Manda Boath, District Adilabad ' -

3. Bejjarapu Laxmi, Wo Rangaiah, Age 62 years, Occ- Household, R/o Sonala village, Mandal Boath, District Adilabad

4. Godavari Ganpat Khate, Wo Ganpat Khate, Age 52 years, Occ- Household, R/o H.No.188-5, Lalagud village, Tehsil Bhokar-, District Nanded, Maharashtia

5. Katlolla Laxmi, Wo Venkataramna, Age 40 years, Occ- household, Rl/o H.No. 1 -23lA, Andhakur village, District Karimnagar

6. Kamdar Anil Kumar (Died) per L.Rs, Respondents No. 7 to t herein 7. Kamdar Kalpana, Wo Late Anil Kumar, Age 55 years, Occ- Household, R/o H.No.4-2-1641N1, Barisathiji Colony, Adilabad

8. Kamdar Kushal, S/o Late Anil Kumar, Age 29 years, Occ- Not known, R/o H.No.4-2-16414l, Ranisathiji Colony. Ariilabaci

9. Darshitha, D/o Late Anil Kumar, Age 32 years, Occ- Household, R/o H.No.4- 2-1641N1, Ranisathiji Colony, Adilabad (Respondents No.7 to g are brought on record as per lA 115 of 202'l dated 29.03.2022) ...Respondents / Respondents / Defendants lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant interim lnjunction restraining the respondents herein and their mens, etc., from interfering from the suit sctedub (A) and (B) properties till disposal oi main appeal and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. SUIT SCHEOULE (A) PROPERTY sy. No. 147lEE/1 to an extent of Ac.1-24 guntas, situated at sonara virarge, Boath Mandal, Adilabad District, bounded by - East - Land of P.Sayanna, Sy. No.147lE/1 West - Land of A.Rajanna, Sy. No.147lE/1 North - Land of K.Laxmi, Sy. No.147lEE/1 South - Sonala to pardi Road SUIT SCHEDULE {Bl PROPERTY Sy. No' 147lEE12lo an extent of Ac.1-24 guntas, Situated at sonara Virarge, Boath Mandal, Adilabad District, boudned by - East - Land of V.Rukma Bai, Sy.No.147lAA West - Land of A.Rajanna, Sy.No.147lE/1 North - Land of Sridhar Reddy South - Land of K.lndira, Sy. No.1 47lEU1. lA NO: 4 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend operation of Judgment and Decree passed in A.s.No.30 of 20.19, dated 11-1o-2o22 on the file of principar District Judge Adirabad confirmed the Judgment and Decree pass€d in o.s.No.12 0f 2014 Dared.2g-12-2018 0n the fire of Junior Civil Judge Court, Boath, Aditabad District, tiil disposal of main appeal. Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent No 7 & g : Counsel for the Respondent No 1 to 7 & 9 Mr Rudresh Deshpande Mr Kondadi Ajay Kumar The Court delivered the following Judgment : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI SECOND APPEAL No. 187 OF 2024 JUDGMENT: Heard Mr.Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellant on admission and also heard Mr.Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Iearned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 and B.

2. This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 11.10.2022 passed in A.S.No.3O of 2019 on the file of the Iearned Principal District Judge, Adilabad, whereby the decree and judgment dated 28 12.2018 in O.S.No.12 ot 2014 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Boath, Adilabad District, has been affirmed.

3. The suit was for partition of the plaint schedule properties in two items to the extent of Ac.1-24 gts., in Sy.No.147l6al1 and , Ac.1-24 gts., in Sy.No.147l6a/2, situated at Sonala Village of Boath Mandal, Adilabad District (for short'the subject property')

4. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff ) and respondent Nos.1 to S/defendant Nos.1 to 5 (hereinafter 'the defendant Nos.1 to 5') are the siblings 2 /VIR, J S.A. No 187 of 2024 and step daughters of Vadla Gangu Bai. The plaintiffs case is that originally the subject property belonged to Vadla Gangu Bai and after her demise, the plaintiff and her sisters are equally entifled for a share in the subject property. The Courts below by observing that there was partition and the tifle deeds issued by revenue authorities are specifying the shares of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and consequent sales of the subject property under registered sale deeds by them in favour of respondent No.6/defendant No.6, dismissed the suit. On appeal, with similar observations, the first appellate Court confirmed the Judgment of the trial Court. Thus, the plaintiff preferred present appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently pleaded that the original pattadar pass book/Ex.A-14 is estabrishing the titre of Vadra Gangu Bai over the subject property. The testimonies of the praintiff and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 as DWs 1 and 2 are making out that the subject property is joint family property and there was no partition among them and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 categorically denied execution of any sale deed in favour of the respondent No.6/defendant No.6. Nonetheless, the Courts below disregarding the evidence and by erroneously reading the revenue records 3 NIR,J SA No 187 ot2024 dismissed the suit and appeal. For this reason' prayed for intervention in the Second Appeal.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos'7 and 8 would submit that the trial and first appellate Courts had considered the statements of DWs 1 and 2 in determining the aspects of joint family status of subject property and entitlement of plaintiff for partition. The revenue records including mutation and pattadar pass books are in favour of defendant Nos l and 2 and they selling off the subiect property claiming as their property is confirming their proprietary right. Therefore, the trial and first appellate Courts were proper in declining the suit claim for partition'

7. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel and perused the materials on record'

8. The facts that the subject property is originally in the name of Vadla Gangu Bai under Ex.A-14 and subsequently' the revenue authority issuing paftadar pass book and title deed in the name of defendant Nos.I and 2 are not in dispute. As per the plaintiff, the subject property is joint family property and she is entitled for share along with other siblings' Axiomatically, onus lies on the plaintiff to establish joint family status and availability of the subject property for 4 NTR,J S.A. No 187 of ZOZ4 partition. To establish these aspects, the plaintiff relied on her statements as pW_1 and the oral evidence of defendant Nos.1 and 2 as DWs 1 and 2. However, admittedly, the tifle deed and pattadar pass book/Exs.B-3 and B{ are in the name of the defendant Nos.1 and 2. Additionally, the fact of availing loan by them by mortgaging these deeds is in agreement. Further, in the sale deeds_Exs.B_1 and B-2, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 as vendees averred that by virtue of pattadar pass books and tifle deeds, they are the owners of the subject property. The certified copies of pahaniestExs.B_G and B_7 are reflecting that the defendant Nos..l and 2 are the pattadars. A juxtaposition of these materials are evidencing that the plaintiffs claim is hinging on the oral evidence of the defendant Nos,1 and 2. However, the mutation of revenue records, execution of sale deeds by the defendant Nos,1 and 2 and though disputed execution of sale deeds, remaining silent all along is compelling to draw conclusion that the documentary evidence is overbearing the orar evidence. lt is well settled that, documents generally considered more objective than oral evidence as subjective infruences wiil not affect or be distorted.

9. For these reasons, the materials placed by the plarntiff are falling short in establishing the essential aspects of subject property 5 NTR,J S.A No.187 of 2024 is joint family property and the same is available for partition. That being the factual position, the conclusions drawn by the Courts below basing on the documentary evidence are found proper and justified. Therefore, it shall be held that the plaintiff failed to make out any tenable ground for deliberation, much less, any substantial question of law for admission of the appeal

10. Resultantly, this Second Appeal is liable to be and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI DEPUW REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To

1. The Principal Diskict Judge, Adilabad District (with records, if any) The Junior Civil Judge, Boath, Adilabad District

3. One CC to Mr Rudresh Deshpande, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Mr Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VA/PR $ HIGH COURT DATED:061011202s JUDGMENT + DEGREE SA.No.187 of 2024 ,,,-l (i .. C .\ o U '9 2 E Fii Z!25 * o * sPar':sf-g ( 2 DRAFTS ) DISMISSING THE APPEAL @qvw