1. Sri. Kamlikar Jangoji v. Sri K. Sajjanlal

Judgment

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADIIA RANI APPEAL SIIIT Nos.139 & 156 of 2022 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals are decided together as the parties are one and the same and they are interconnected.

2. A.S.No.l39 of 2022 is filed by the appellants who were the defendants 1 to 7 aggrieved bl the judgment and decree dated,29.04.20211 passed in O.S.No.44 of 2018 5.v the leamed I Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar.

3. O.S.No.44 ol 2018 is a suit for partition filed by the respondents - plaintiffs.

4. A.S.No.156 ,tl'2022 is filed by the appellants who were the plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2022 passed in O.S.No.l08 of 2016 by the learrred I Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar.

5. O.S.No.108 of 2016 is a suit for declaration, rectification of r:ntries in the revenue record and injunction.

6. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants and respondents were legal heirs of late Chandoji. Late Chandoj i had three sons by name Ramchanderji, Balram and Mohanlal and two daughters by name Jangamma 2 DT.GRR' J as 139 & 156 2022 and Laxmi Bai. The appellants in both the cases are the wife and children of Ramchanderji. Originally, the son of Balram by name Sajjanlal, son of Mohanlal by name Raju and daughter of late Chandoji by name Jangamma filed a suit for partition in the Court of leamed Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, claiming one-fourth share in the suit schedule properties shown as Ac'6-24 guntas each in survey Nos.6ll ll and 611 12, total Ac.13-08 guntas in the limits of Kadthal Village, Amangal Mandal of Mahabubnagar District, which was numbered as o.s.No.273 0f 2006. Thereafter, the said suit was transferred to the I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar and re-numbered as O'S'No'44 of 2018. The wife and sons of Ramchanderji filed a suit for declaration of title with respect to Ac.6-24 guntas of land in Survey No.61l /2 of Kadthal village and Mandal (erstwhile Amangal Mandal) of Mahabubnagar District (presently Rangareddy District) in the year 2016, which was tried as O'S.No'108 of 2016' Pleadin in O.S.No.44 of 2016:

7. The case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.273 of 2006 (which was tried as O.S.No.44 of 2018) was that since 1964-65, late Chandoji and his sons Ramchanderji, Balram and Mohanlal along with daughter of late chandoj i by name Kamalikar Jangamma were cultivating the land bearing Survey No'611 to an extent of Ac.13-08 guntas on crop share basis till 1971-72. In the yeat 1972- 73, the original pattadars of the said land have sold the said land to late 3 Dr.GRR, J as 139 & 156 2022 chandoj i and his sons for nominal sale consideration, recognizing their previous services. As the common ancestor, late Chandoj i became old, the patta of the said tand was mutated in the names of Ramchanderji and Balram in the revenue records for convenience sake by assigning sub-division numbers as 611 /1 and 611 12 to an extent of Ac.6-24 guntas each. Since 1972-73, the names of late Ramchanderj i and late Balram were recorded as pattadars of the suit schedule lands in all the rev,:nue records. The members of the joint family cultivated and enjoyed the suit schedule lands. During the course of time, their common ancestor late Chandoji and his three sons Ramchanderj i, Balram and Mohanlal died. As the family went on enlarging due to marriages of the co-sharers, they separated in mess, but were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit lands. There was no physical partition of the suit schedule properties among the co- sharers. As the plaintiffs in O.S.No.44 of 2018 were experiencing difficulty in joint cultivation of the suit lands, they convened a meeting on 01 . 12-2006 before the elders of the village and called the defendants and demanded for partition of the suit schedule lands into four equal shares and for allotment of one such share to each of them. The defendants posQoned the matter. Again on 25.12.2006, tht: plaintiffs demanded the defendants for physical partition of the suit lands. But the defendants bluntly refused taking advantage of recording their names in the revenue records as pattadars. The plaintiffs approached the concemed revenuo authorities, obtained certified copies of revenue records and 4 Dr.GR& J as 139 & 156 2022 came to know that behind their back, the defendants (the legal heirs of Ramchanderji) fraudulently got mutated the entire land in their names' As the plaintiffs were equal shareholders on par with the defendants over the suit lands' they fited the suit for partition and separate possession for their one-fourth share each in the suit schedule lands'

8. The defendants I to 7 (appellants in A'S'No'139 of 2022) filed written statement submitting that late Ramchanderji (the father of defendants I to 6 and husbandofdefendantNo.T)purchasedthesuitlandswithhisself-eamingsfrom its earlier owners through registered sale deed document Nos'505/1968 and 506/1968 on 05.06.1968' However, the name of late Balram was also joined by late Ramchanderji as one of the purchasers and joint owners of the suit lands' though he had not contributed any money to purchase the said lands' His name was nominally recorded as one of the owners of the said lands' Late Chandoji hadnoconcemwiththesuitlands,ashehadnotacquiredthesuitlandsandnot contributed anything for purchasing the suit lands' Even if he cultivated the suit landearlierascontendedbytheplaintiffs,still,hewouldnotgetanytitlemuch less valid title over the suit lands' Late Balram had also not contributed any money for pwchasing the suit lands and his name was nominally recorded as joint owner along with late Ramchanderji' The relations between late Ramchanderji and late Balram vEe*ordial and as such late Ramchanderji got nameofhisbrotherBalramrecordedasco-ownerofthesuitlandsnominally : 5 Dr.CR& J as 139 & 156 2022 and purchased the lands in his name nominally. Infac! late Ramchanderji was the absolute orvner of the suit lands and his other brothers, sisters and his late father chandoji had no right and interest over the suit lands and they were not ancestral joinr lanrilv properties. Thus. the plaintiffs had no right [o seek partition of the suit lands. on this ground alone, the suit was liable to be dismissed. The pl,intiff No.l i.e. sri KamlikarSajjanlal (S/o.LateBalram) was also not having any subsisting right in the suit lands, in view ofthe fact that, his father sold the same to late Ramchanderji. .The revenue authorities mutated the names of late Ramchanderji and late Balram as co-owners / joint owners of suit lands. Late Ran-rch anderj i permitted Balram to cultivate part of the suit land for some period. Late Balram had shown his willingness to sell his interest in the suit lands to late Itamchanderji and the said proposar was accepted by late Ramchanderji. Acr:ordingly, rate Ramchanderji purchased the interest of late Balram in the suit lands by paying varid sale consideration of Rs.5,025l- on

22.03.1975 (Aananda Nama Samvatsara parguna Shudda Dashimi). The said Balram executed saie deed in favor of late Ramchanderji on 22.03.1975 having received sale consideration and transferred his interest in the suit land and left the possession of suit land by compretery handing over possession of his share of land out of suit lands to late Ramchanderji. The said document was later got validated by late Ramchanderji by paying necessary stamp duty and penalty before Revenue Di'isional officer (for short "RDo,,), Mahabubnagar in the 6 Dr.GRR, J as 139 & 156 2022 year 1989. The said document was implemented in the revenue records and the name of Ramchanderj i was mutated as exclusive owner of suit lands and the nameofBalramwasdeleted.Theplaintiffswereawareofthesaidproceedings, but intentionally suppressed the same'

8.1. The defendants I to 7 further submitted that late Ramchanderji was in exclusive possession of the entire extent of the suit land ftom 22 '03 '797 5 till his death on 02.0l.1996, which included the land in the nrime of Balram in the revenue records' Thereafter, the defendants were continuing possession as absolute owners being legal heirs of late Ramchanderji'

8.2. The defendants 1 to 7 further submitted that late Ramchanderji and thereafter the defendants were in possession of the suit lands continuously without intemrption from 22'03 '1975 with the knowledge of late Balram and plaintiffs and all others openly asserting and claiming title to the suit property' Thedefendantsacquiredtitletotlresaidlaidbybeinginadversepossessionfor more than the statutory period of 12 years' The rights of plaintiffs if any over the suit lands were extinguished for being out of possession for more than the statutory period. The defbndants were absolute and exclusive owners of the suit land to an extent of half share in their own righ! which they succeeded from Iate Ramchande{ i, who was the absolute owner of the said extent and succeeded to the rest of the exteil bs legal heirs of Ramchanderj i' which was 7 Dr.GRR, J as 139 & 156 2022 purchased by hin. J he narnes of defendants were also mutated as; owners of the suit land afle. ther d.arh o I' Ranrchanderj i and paltadar passbook and title deeds were also issued to them. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 had no connection with the suit lands. The claim of the praintiffs that late chandoji had acquired the suit land was nor corrcct ['he suit iands were not joint famiry properties nor acquired by Iate chandoji or by rhe rare farherof plainriff No.2. The ptaintiff No.l had arso no right to llle the present suit, in view of the fact that, his rate father himserf had no right o'er rhc suir rands, as during his rifetime, he had sold his interest in the suit properry ro rrc rare tather of der-endants r to 6. The rigrrts or praintiff No. I and his late I'ather: Balram were extinguished in the suit lands for being out ol possossion 1br thc past more than l2 vears. 8'3 I'he de|endantri r Lo 7 further contended that the suit was bar-red by lirnitatio,. Thcv arso contended that the suit was bad ror norr-joinder and rnis-joinder o1- parties. r.ate Chandoji was having a daughter by name Laxmi Bai, whosc existence was not shown by the plaintifrs. Late Balranr was having wife by name Sha.kari Bai and two daughters by name Bharathi ,ai and Rani Bai, who wcrc a, aliv: and their existence was also not shown by the plai.tiffs. Late Mohanlar rvas havrng wife by name Sharpu Bai and her existence was also .ot shown A, rhe iesar heirs of Ramchanderji, Barram and Mohanlal and Chandoii \\'ere llol sht'rr It as partics, 'l'hc suit r.vas not mai.lainable in view of. non-adding of said pcn;ons Lo the suit I , Dr'.GRR, J"-1 as 139 & 156 2072 g. Subsequently, another daughter of late Chandoji by name I-axniibai was added as delendant No.8, the daughters ol late Ramchanderji were addcd as def'er.rdants g and 10, the daughters of late Balrailr wore added as defenda[rts I 1 and 12 as perlhe ordeIs in i.A.No.88 of 2012 datecl l3.l1.2013 and wife of late Balram ar.rd wife ol latc Mohaniai were added as def'cr1dants I I and 14 respectivelyaspertheorclerinl.A.No.84of2al4datedl3.l0.20i4'The daughter of lale Ramchanderji added as defendant No. l0 also filed her written statelnent in a similar manner as tliat of del'endants I 1o 7' t0. l'he leatned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar on cousidcring t.he pteaclings in O.S.No.273 o12006 {iamed the issues as follows: (i) Whetl'rel the suit was not rnaintainable for non-joinder and rtis- joinder of parties? (ii) Whether the plaintilfs were in joint possession ol :;chedulc propertY? (iii) Whether the defendants acquired title over the properly by adverse possession? (iv) Whether the suit rvas baned by limitation'1 (v) Vr'hether the plaintiffs were entitled to prelirninary decree lbr partition of schedule properties, as prayed fbr'? (vi) tf so, to what reliefl 9 Dr.GRR, J as lJ9 & 156 2022 Alter adding the other defendants, additional issues were: framed on 25. 10.201 7 as lollou,s: (i) whether the lather or defendant No. 10 had purchased the share of iate Balram for a consideration of Rs.5,Cr25l_ on 22.03.1t)25 and delivcred possession? (ii) Whcthe'rhc defendanrs I to 7,9 and l0 had acquired the title b1' 'vay of adverse possession? ( iii) I'o u.hat relief? I I . 1'he plaintilT NIc,. I u,as examined as pW. I and two other r," itnesses were examined as PWs.2 and 3 in supporl 0f the case of the plaintirfs. Exs.A1 to Ag were ma.ked on beh:Llf or the praintif'fs. The defendant No. I was examined as DW'I and DWs 2 and J *'ere examined on behalf of the defendanrs. Exs.Bl to 858 werc rnarked. Plea di n s rn O.S.No .108 of20l6:

12. The defendant; I to 7 in O.S.No.44 ol 20l g subsequently filed o s.No. 108 o1' 20i6 as plaintifrs seeking relief of declaration of titre, rectillcation o1'cntrie:; in the revenue record and injunction only for Ac.6-24 guntas of land fbrming, part of Survey No.6l l /2 of Kadthar Viilage and Mandar (erstwhile Amangar N,.ndal), Mahabubnagar (presently Rangarecrdy District) with averments almost in a simirar manner as that of the contents of their written stateme,t liled in o.S.No.44 0f 201g. 'rhey contended that they were 10 l)r.(iRR, J^, as t39 & 156 2022 absolul.e ownel.s, pattadars and possessors .of Ac.l3-09 guntas formin€ pal1 of survey No.61l r:1, Kadthal Village and l\4andal (€rstwhilc AmangalMarrdal), Mal.rabubnagar District (presently Rangareddy District)' Originally' Sri Ramchar.rdefji, late husband of ptaintitTNo.i and l'ather of plaintiffs 2 to 7 during his lifetinre purchasecl Ac.6-25 guntas lorming parl of Survey No'6 t I ll under registered sale deecl ilocument dated 05:06. l96ti registered as docnment No.506 of 1968 of Book-I, Volume 42 on page 470 in the Offrce of thc Sub- Registi:ar, I(alwakurthy, Mahabubnagar District fi'oni its lawiul owncr' possessor auci pattadar Sri Guduru Narsi Reddy; S/o Sri Yclla Reddy and pulchaseC ari extellt of /tc.6-24 gur-rtas 'forming pad tlf Survey No'(rl I 12 of Kaclthal Village and Manclal under a sa le cleed dated 05 '06 1 968 registcred as document No.505 ol 1968 of Book-I, Volume 42 cn pages 459 to 470 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Kalwahurtl.ry from its lau'ful owner' possessor and pattadar Sli Gurduru Kanth l{edd.v, S/o' sri Yella Reddy At tilat' poinl ol time' SriRamchanderjinominaltygotthenameofhisbrotherSriBalram,includedin botl.r the said sale deeds as one of the purchasers' but infuct the entire sale consideration was paid by Sri Ramchanderii only' After purchasing thc said land, the names of Sri Ramchanderji and his brother Sri Balram were mutated in the revenue records. l-lpon mutation, the said lands were assigned u'ith Survey Numbers as 6I I 1l and 6I Lr2 i e land admeasuring Ac'6-24 guntas' which was made patta in the name of Balram was shown as assigned v'ith 11 M ohanlal, Dr.GRR, J as_139 & 156 2022 Survey No 6l 1 i2 and rand admeasur ing Ac.6-25 guntas, in wlich patta was made in the narnc c_r 1' Ramchanderj i was assigned as Survey No.6l I /l . Subsequently, a settierlent took place among Sri Ramchanderji, Sri Barram and the youngest brother of Sri Ramchanderj i and Sri Balram, Sri pulsuant to which tlalrarn and Mohanlal jointly sold the lancj admcasuring Ac 16-00 guntas in Su^'ey No.69g in Kadthar vilrage of Mahabubnagar District, v'hich exrerr of land includes the share of Sri Ramchanderji. sri Balram and Sri Mohanlal .iointry reccived the sare consideration vrith rcspect to the said land and appropriated the same for themselves. Therealt<:r, Sri Barram joined Sr i Mohanlar and executed a sare-cum-famiry settrement deed dated 22'03.1975 convevinli tr.re sLrir land standing in the narne or.Sri Balram in favor of Sri Ramchande. ji Larer, the said sale-curn-tbmily settrernent deed was recorded in the revenue records in the year lgg0 and the entire extent of land admeasuring Ac. r3-0() guntas was mr-rtated in the ,anre of Sri Ranrchanderji in the Record of Righrs (Ibr shorl "RoR"). Subsequently, the sare.-cum-family settlement was valida:ecr 'ide proceedings No.D/4645lgg issued by the RDo, Mahabubnagar District and requisite stamp duty with penarty was paid and a new ROR w.as also is:;ued in the namc' o1'Rarnchanderji confirming his rights, title and possession over the same. The entry in RoR was conclusive proof of title' cle hors the paharies During his liretime, Sri Rarnchanderji enjoyed the exclusive possessio, of the suit land and exercised ownership rigJrts over the. i? Dr.GRR, J ' ' as 139 & 156 2A2Z SameVr'ithoutanyhindrancefronlany'quarterinc{udingthedefendantsAfter thedemiseofsriRamchanderjiciuringthel,earlggr5,trpontheapplicationof the plaintiffs, after compiying the requisite formalities' succession pattas were granted in favor of the plainiilfs by the Tahsildar' Amensal ' Vlandai' lv{aliabubnagarDisttictandil;suedpal-tadar.passbooksandtitledeeds-inlavoro| theplaintiffs.Asthelandv,aluesiniurd'aroutlclthevicinityofthesaidland incr.eased,thc<lel,:ndanrincollusirllrrvithhislalnilymemhersinclutJirrghis children. aunt and son ol N4ohar-rlalhatched a coilspilac-v to usurp the suit land and alsc the lanci l)'ing in Sulvey No'6 i l" / t ancl trled a suit t-or partitic-rn in o.S.No.273of2006..I.he.jefendirnt|riedarepresen[ationbeiole'tlrerevcnue authorities and exercising influence ovcr thenr succeedecl in getting a tavorabtc r.epottinhisfavoriiomrlre'I.ahsildar,AlnangalMarrdal,MahabubnagarDistrict, which report pel se, was against the recot'ds and documents Basing orr the said report,theRDO.l\4ahabubnagarr"'ithoutvcrit'v'ingthccorrectnessol'thesaid report, cancr:lled the succession pattas issued in favor of the plaintilfs vide its proceedings No.81932212012 dated 08'05'2015"I'he ptaintiffs furtheL submitted that the change of ownership in the ROt( record was not ali'ected pursuant to the succession patta issued as per the procecdings in File No.E,/121i ls96 dated 31.12.1996, bu1 was allected pursuant to the recording of the sale-cum-latr iiy settlement deed dated 22 '03 1g75 by the concemed during the year 1980 and proceedings ofthe RDO during the yeal 1988' Neither the 13 Dr.GRR, J as lJ9 & 156 2022 defendant nor anybodv craiming through him or Sri Mohanrar or Sri chandoji objected the said p.oceedings or the entries in the revenire rr:cords, tilr the del-endant filed representation before the Distr:ict CoUector, N4ahabubnagar. The cancellation of succession patta by the RDo was nonest and bad and the same was not bindirrg upon the praintiffs. Upon coming to krnorv about the iil atl.empts made by the defendant, the plaintiffs made a represr:ntation dated

26.05.2015 before the District coflector, Mahabubnagar. An enquiry was taken up afresh and reporr dated 04.05.2015 was sent to the RDo. But the RDo ignoring the said rcporl proceederJ against the praintiffs and lrassed orders against the plaintiflf's canceiling the succession pattas. Against trre said orders passed by the RDo, the plaintiffs prefened a revision before the Jc,int colrector, Mahabub.agar-in carie No.Dr/40/2015. But un{onunately, the same arso went against the plaintifls on technicarities. Therefore, the praintiffs were constrained to inr"oke the *,r'it jurisdiction of the High court vide writ petition No3252l of 2016 ancr the High court vide its orders clatecr 27.09.2016 suspended the operation of the orders passed by the RDo as welr as the Joint collector. But r-he <iel'endant meanrvhile exercising his influerrce over the revenue o1ficiars, succ:eeded in obtaining a patta passbook bearinS; No.411366 lrom the fahsildar. .A'mangarMangal, Mal.rabubnagar District in his favor with respect to the land adnreirsuring Ac.6-24 guntas forming parl of Survey No.6l l, which was assumcd as Survey No.6l r /2 of Kadthar Village and Nlandal. The 1"4 Dr.CIlR,.!' ' as 139 & 156 2022 delendant during the second week of October. 2016 basing on the pattadar passbook and entries in thc rcvcnue recol'ds, attcnlptcd to crcate third partl' interest detrimental to the right^ title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land. As such, the plaintiffs fiied the suit fol declaration, rectification ofentries in the revenue records ior the years 2012-13,20 li-14,20 l.i-15 and 2015-16 and fbr the consequential reliei of irti'.mctiorl

13. Sri K.Sajianlal. S/o. late Balram was sho'rvn as the onlv defendanl in O.S.No.108 of 2016. I.lc filed v'rittcn statement contending that the fhther o1' the dcl'cndant i.c. Sri Balrant us well as Sri Ramchardclii ltad.ioirrtlv l'rurchascd the lzurd irr Survey r..,\o.6l l to a total extent of .Ac.l3-08 gLrnta:; under registered sale dced docutnents Nos.505,/1968 dated ()5.06.1968 and 506/1968 dated

05.06.1968 and they were put ir,to joint possession by tt.rerr vendors. The names of Ran.rchandelii and Bah'am were shown jointlf in the rcvinuc records since the year of lheir purchase. Though, Ramchancierj i and Balraln wele separated in mess, they jointty used to cultivate the entire exient of Survey No.611 i.e. Ac.13,04 guntas (including the suit IanC). Ramchanderji died long 'Ihe patlies to back and Balram, the tather of delbndant died in the 1't:ar'2005. the suit faced difficutty in joint cultivation of the total extent of the land in Survey No.611. 'Iherefore, they asked the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession. But, they did not comc lbrward lor ellecting pafiition' l'he defendant then approached thc revenrre authorities fo| certified copies ol ROR 15 Dr.GRR, J as 139 & 156 2022 and then came to l<rLorv that the plaintiffs succeeded in mutating their names as legal heirs of Ramcharderji in respect of the entire extent of the land in Survey No.6ll under f-alse lr'oceeding No.E/l2ll1996 dated 31.12.1996 of the Mandal Revenue Olficer (fb- short "MRO,'), Amangal. On enquiry, the defendant came to l<nou' that therc *as no such proceeding. The authorities had given him endorsement to that efl'ect. The defendant filed an applic.ation bearing No'B/9322l2012 before the RDo, Mahabubnagar challengirg the illegal proceedirgs of the N{Ro, Amangal in Iill2lll996. The RDO allowed the appeal and aIler thorough enquiry, cancelled the proccedings 8,, l2ll1996 and granted succession ie l-avor of the defendant in respect of the suit lands. The 'l-ahsildar, Amangali,plemented the order and mutated the name of the dclendant in the Rec r.cl of Rights in respect of the suit land and issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favor ofthe defendant. The ptaintitrs f led a revision belore the Joint clollector, Mahabubnagar. The Joint collector dismissed the revisio, r'ide proceeding No.D l/40/20 I 5 and conllrmed Lhe order. ol the RDo, Mahabub,agar. The plaintiffs filed writ petition before the High court and obtained interi,r suspe,sion of the order, but by the said date, the order was impler-ncntcd. Iience, rhe interim order became infructuous. T'he defendant and others filed a suit lor partition and separate possession against the ptaintilfs and others vide o.S.No.273 of 2006 before the rearned Senior civir Judge, Mahabr:bnagar ard thc same was pending adjudicaLion. 'r-hc praintilrs were 16 I)r.(lllR..i. \ as li9 & 13$ 247], aware ol denial of'their exclusive title rvav back in the year 2006 wherr the suit O.S.No.27.j of 2006 WaS filed, bui did not 0ho0se to li[e ooutrter claim, lle also further contended that the suit rvas bad for nou-joinder' of necessary parlies' The other claim.ants of the suit lands u,cre not nlade as parties to the suiL and prayed to dismiss the suit 14 Basingonthesaidpleadings,thefollo.'vingissuesrverellanledibrtrial (i) Whether late l(-Balram was nor-uinallv shown as one of thc vendees of the sale deed dated 05.C)6.1968 vidc docrimet-l'" l.Jo.505r'1968 relating to the pulchase of the suit scheCuic land {iorn its original orcler Sri Cuduru Kanth Rcddy? (ii; Whether late K.Ra;rchanclerji w'as the excltrsive ovnner of the suit schedule [and? (iii) Wl.rether the sale-cunr-lamilv settlernent dced dated 22.03.1g75 executed by late llalram and late Mr:hanla'l in favor o1' late Ramchanderji was true, valid and binding on thc de{bndant'l (iv) Whether the plaintil'fs t'ere entitled to seeh a declaration of their right,:f orvnershin over the s:Lri1 schedulc iand? (v) Whether the plaintiffs rvere entitled to reclit'icalion o1 eutries in the revenue tecords in respect ofthe suit schedule land? (vi) Whether the suit was bad fbr non-joinder of necessary parties? (vii) To what relief? 1-7 Dr.CRR,.I as lJ9 & 156 2OZz 15. The ptaintil'f No.2 was examined as pw. l and two (02) other- witnesses were examined as PWs.2 and 3 on behalf of the plaintiti's. Exs..A,l to A45 were marked -l-he defen,la,t No. l was examined as DW. l and another witness was examined as DW.2 on behalf of the defendants. Exs.Bi to 89 were marked. 16 The trial coufi on considering the evidence on record herd that the plaintifl's in o.S.No. r 08 or 20 r6 had no excrusive right and titlt: over the suit Iand in Survey No.6 I r /2 and that they failed to prove the existence of the sale- cum-famil' settlement crated 22.03.1975, as such opined that they were not entitled lbr rectificati.n ol entries in the revenue records or lor declaration of title but passed a prc:lirninary decree in o.S.No.44 of 20tg obseruing that the suit land *as joint ramiry property of the plaintiffs and defendants and that the plaintills were entitled fbr parlition of the suit schedure property irto fbur equar shares ancl lbr al]otrn3rt of one such share to the plaintirf's 1 to i each and one share to the legal hei;-s of rate Ramchanderj iwith separate possession by metes and bounds ll ' Agg'ieved br rhe said judgments and decrees, the regat heirs of late Ramchanclcrji fi led thr:sc appeals. I8 l{eard Sri 'edura Srinivas, leamed Senior counsel representing Ms'Vedula Chit'arertha, rearned counser for the appelrants on rer:ord and Sri J.Ram Mohan Rao. leanred counsel for the respondents. ./ Dr.GRlt,.l,' as 1J9 & 156 i0?,2

19. Leatned Senior Counsel lol the appcllants contended that the suit schedule propefty was not a joint family propefty and it exclusively belonged to Ramchanderj i and thereafter to his ]egal [.reirs. The suit for partition was not rraintainable. The trial court though fi amed sir issues and trvo adciitional issues in the suit 1br partition. failed to lranre the main issue i.c. ruhether latc Chandoji was the owner of the sui.t schedule property and u,hether the properly u'as in the nature of jcint family propert,"- liabte foi partition. It was a serious error on the part of the Court below, which vitiat.ed thc.judgment. Unless- tl.:e (lourt fiarnes such an issue and answet's it, the suit tbr' lraltil.iorr was not rnaintainablc- I'he plaintiff.s, rvho came to the Courl contendini3 l-hat the suit scheciule Droperty v/as acquired by chandoji and kept in thc narnes ol Rarnchar.rderji and Balram. need to prove the sarne under Sections I01 and 102 of the lndian Evidence Act,

1872. But no evidence i,vas aclduced by the plaintitfs to prove that Cirandoii acquired the suit schedule propert)' and kept it in the names ol Rarnchanderii and Balramexcept filing Ex.Al pahani in O'S'No44 of 2018 (original o.S.No.273 of 2006), which would show the rrame ol chando.ii in the tenant column, but not in the pattadar column. I'lxs.A2 t.o l\6 would sborv rhe names of Ramchanderji and Balrarn in the pattadar column. I'he otal evidence of pws. I to 3 was relevant. The adr-nissions made b,,- PWs.l to 3 in the cross- examination were crucial. But unloftunatcly. the Court below did not appreciate the oral evidence at att. It was a serious elror on its part, as the trial 19 D r.(i RR, J as ll9 & 156 2022 court had to invariably appreciate the oral as well as documerrtary evidence. The appellants/ del'endanrs in O.S.No.44 of 2018 marked Ex.B1, sale-cum- lamily sertlenlenl decd executed by Balram and Mohanlal in favor of Itamchanderji in respect of rhe land in Survey No.61 1. Though, this document rvas in Telugu, it ra,as in chain language. As such, thc trial court unable to comprehend it, ignored the same. It was a crucial document. As such, the translation ol the rLbove document was filed as additional e.vidence under order XLI Rute 27,r1-cpc vide I.A.No.1 of 2023. The other exhibits filed by the appcllants -' d,:lLndants would show the mutation done, in favor of def'endants I to 7 a.d the pahanies in their names for various years. Ex.B56 was the p'oceedings ,:f -fahsildar dated 31.12.1996, whereby the mutation of del'endants 1 to 7 ro.k place. Ilx.l)55 would shorv thc de letion of the name of' Balram in the re'enue entries and continuation of the name of Ramchanderji alone. The findings recorded by the trial court that the suit was not barred by limitation as rvell as .he findings that defendants I to 7 did not per.fect their title by way ol adverse pc,ssession, were erroneous. when pws. r to 3 in o.S.No.44 of 2018 categoricallv admitted that the land was never cultivated by Balram and Mohanlal and that r-he same was under cultivation of Rarncharderrji, the coum was bound to consider as to why the said Balram and Mohanlal never raised any objection nor ap,proached the revenue authorities / civil ccurt for their share and lbr proceeds of the cultivation. Tl-rere courd be onry ,ne inference "--/ 20 Dr'.GltR, J as l.l9 & 156 2022 that could be gatheled from [lir:ir conducl that Balrairr and lvlohanlal gave up their land in Survey Nos.6Ll /l and 61 1 /2 in favor of ltamchanderji. It rvas only after the death of thcse two persons, the plaintiffs'had instituted O.S.No.44 ol 20 18 (originai O.S.No.273 ol 2006.1 seeking partition of the suit schedule property. Except the revenue records. no title docurnents were marked. 'llhe findings of the Court belorv that the plaintiffs u,ere in joint possession o1'the suit schedule propcfty was contlary tcr the oi'al evidence nn reccrd. Wherl thele was no evidence tc show that rhe land whs purchased by Clhancio.ii, the Cotr( could not presume that thc possession of Ramchar-rderii r'vas possession ol all the membels of tl-re ioint fanrily. .The court wroltgly rcfetred Lo the revcirue entries from 2015 onwards, since tl.ris Court in \V.P.No.32521 o{'2016 dated

03.04.2023 hetd that the continuation oithe revenue entries would depend upon thc outccrme of A.S,Nos. l1l9 and 156 o1' 2022. llcncc. thc Court beiou' could not take into account 1he order of the RDO of the year 20 15 and tirat ol the order of the Joint Collector in the year 2016. Even though. Flx.B I u'as an un- registered documetrt and could not be relied upon for thc putpostr of'pror"ing the titte, the said document together with the oral evidence and entries in the revenue records for a long period put together would establish thai Balranl and Mohanlal acted as per the cotltents of Ilx.B 1 and the said document couid be looked into for the purpose ol'ascertaining the aspect of possession and prayed 2! Dr.GRR, J as lJ9 & 156 2022 to allow the appeals b1 setting aside the judgments and decrees of the trial couft in O.S.No.44 of 2it18 and O.S.No.108 of 2016.

20. Learncd coLrnscl fbr the respondcnts on thc other hand contended rhat the plaintilfs in o.S.Nc.4,1 of 2018 filed the suit seeking partition of their joint lamill inrmor ahlc Propcnies acquired during the lirerime of rheir Iate grandfather by narre chandoji. lhey filed the suit on the basis of revenue records and registered sale deeds. The relationship between the parties was admitted. The dclendants I to 7 in o.S.No.44 of 20lg denierl that the suit schedulc propcfly \! iLS not a joint f-amily property and that the entire suit schedulc property to an extent of Ac. l3-08 guntas was the self-acquired property of their larher late Ramchanderji. They also claimed adverse possession a.d thar thc suit rvas bar.ed by Ii*itation. Ex.Al pahani copy pe(aining to the year 1964 and65 would clearly show the name of chandoji in the column ol cr.rltivalion and the names of Narsi Reddy and Kantl.r Reddy as pattadars. 'n,hich rvould disclose thar thc grandlather of the plair:tiffs rendered his services by cultivating the suit schedule property and acqu red the same through his hard earned money and purohased the same in the nares of his sons bv name Ramchan,Jcrj i and Balram. Aftcr the dcath of their father Ramchanderji, rhe dt:fendants I to 7 in o.S.No.44 of 201g colluded with the then revenue officialr; and manipulated the revenue records and obtained RoR titlc dccds in respect olthe suit schedule pro,y in Sur-vey No.61l /2 without 22 l)r.(lltR. Ji es 139 & l5(r l02i (he knowletlge ernd noticc to lhc FlairltilI s-o.l und other plainti{i! againsl the principles of netufal justice. The zrppellants hacl takon inconsistent pleas. otl onehand,theycoritendedthatt[:esr-ritschec]ulepropeftywas'acquireclbytheir fatlrer Ramc,harrdeLji, but on the other hand, they had taken tlre.plea,ol.adr'erse p,ossessloll and also contelded , that the rights of the plaintiff; extinguislicii.Theyalso,pleadedousterand'tlrattlresuitwasbarr.edby limitatir-'n..I.lrcappellantstotally'reliedupon}.:x.BI,t]5,1anciB56'[:x.l]lrvas irnpounded b,v fhe then RDO, as i]el proceedinp's NoBi'1645/l98ii d^ated 05.t2.1988. I1ut, as per Ex.,A.5 in O'S'No'108 of 2016' the -'ignalure of ttD(-) i,vas different and uot tallying rr ith lhr: signature ur-rder I:x ll L [:x'L] I clocLinlent was incomprr.eher-rsible. The contents of it coulcl nol he Llnderstood- ii tvas n')t execu+-edb5rallthepal'ties'Itu'asa'suspiciousandanrbiguousclocumentand coulci not be consitlercd as :r documc-nl under sectiou g3 01'the Indian l:vidence Act. l8?2. In Ex.ts54 pahani, the rer"enue authorities clid not mention the details of the sale deed and the names of the parties to the alleged sa le deed' The revenue authorities statcd the procccdings olthe RDO as Cated 08 02'i969' but ra'hereas in Ex.Bl proceedings, the date was mentioned as 05' t2'1988' Tl1us,thecontradictorlstatementsmadebytlreappellarrtsidef-endantsaswell as the revenue authorities rvould clearly reveal that t"rs'B1 and B54 were not genuirre and relied upon the follorving judgments: Dr.GRR, J as lJ9 & 156 2022 Bhagwan Dayal (since cleceased) represented by his legal representatives and another v. Mst.Reoti Devi (deceased) represenLd by her lega I represt,nlativesr. B.R.Patil v. Tulsa l sawkar ancl Others2. MN.Aryamurthi and another v. M.L.Subbarayasctty (dead) by his lcgal representati\ es and olhcrsJ. YellapuUrnaMaheswa ri and another v. Buddha Jagad heeslva raRao and othcrs{. Pratapsingh (Dcad) through legal representatives and others v, Shiv Ram (Dead) through lcgal rep resen taiivess. Vishwa Vijay Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan and others6. 21 . on considerinll thc rival contcntions of both the learned counsel, the points that arise lbr consideration in these appeals are: (i) whether the suit schedule properries in o.s.No.44 of 201g (original o S'No 273 ol 2006) are .ioinr ramirl' properties and whether the respondents, who were the plaintif).s in O.S.No.44 ol 20 I 8 are entitled lor partition of the suit schedule properties as claimed by them? (ii) whether the sale-cum-Family sertlement deed dated 22.03.1g75 can be raken into cons ideration? (iii) whetherthe appelrants, who were the plaintiffs in o.S.No.l0g of 2016, are entitled fbr the relicfofdeclaration of title, rectification ofentries irr the revenue records and consequential injunction, as claimed by them? 'AIR t962 SC 287 '2072 Lau, Suir (SC) 175 'AIR 1972 sc 1279 '(20i5) l6 scL.787 '(2020) il sC( 242 11976) 3 SCC (r42 24 .-.. ^D:'ltlLi as iJ9 & l-s(i 2012 (iv) Whether the judgments of the trial coun in O,S,.Nos.4,X oI 20 t8 arrd 108 oi 2016 are irt accordancc u ith the thcts anil lar.,'' or lilble 1o bc set lside? ,,, (v) To w'hat relief? Point No.(i): Whether tht' srrit schedule properties in O.S.No.44 ct' 2018 (origiual O.S.No.273 of 2006) are joilrt family properties artd whether the respondents, n,ho rvera the plaintiffs in O.S,No.44 of'2018 are entitled for partition of the suit scherJule propcrties as clairued by them? 22. ln a suit fcrr panition, the plaintiff has to .initiall-v prove that hc rvas having a share or interest in the suit scheclule properties, as partition of propelty can bc r.nly ainong thosc havrng a sltare ot'intercst irr-it. l'he person whti does not havc a shale in sucl-t propefiy cannot be a pafly to a suit for partition. 1he Court lias to firs1 Cecide r.vhether the plaintiff has a $lrare in the suit propc!'1y and rvhether he is entitled for division and separate possession, -Ihe plaintitts approached the Court contending that thc suit scl-recluie property ii,as acquit'ed by Chandoji and was kept in the names of Ramchar.rdcrji and Balram. As per Sections 1 01 and I 02 of' the lndian Evidence Act, I 872. the burden lies upor.r them to prove thc facts, which were asserted by them.

23. The plaintifii got examined PWs.[ to 3 in O.S.No.273 of 2006 (re- nturibered as O.S.No.44 of 2018) in support of their case. 24 The plaintiff No. I was "*#ii"a as PW.1 PW.l was none other than the son of Balram. He filed his evidence affidavit cor-rtending that their ancestors 25 Dr.GRR, J as_l39 & 156-,_2022 were having land irL Survey No.6ll to a total extent of Ac.l3-08 guntasand that they culrivated the and jointly on crop share basis till lgll - 72 and in the year 1972-73, the originai pattadars ofthe said land sotd the said land to Chandoji and his sons for norninal sale consideration recognizing their prt:vious services. Late Chandoji got rnutated the patta of the land in the names o; Ramchanderji and Balram lor an ,:c1ual extent of Ac.6-24 guntas each. He further stated that since 1912-13, the narnes of late Ramchanderji and his father laie Balram were recorded as pattadars of the suit schedule land in all revenue rr:cords and that the members of the.ioint family cultivated and enjoyed the suit schedule lands

25. 'l'he plaintifh go1 tlled Exs.Ar to Al1 in support of their contenrion. Ex.A1 is the certifit:cl copy of the pahani for the year 1964-65. Ex.Al pahani would show the narre of chandoji in the tenant column. but not in the pattadar column. '[-hc names o1- the pattadars were shown as Narsi Reddy and Kanth Reddy, sons ol Yella Reddy, which would not disclose chandoj i as the owner of the propertv. ln.42 is the ce(ified copy of the pahani for 1,ear lgTl-72. Ex.A2 would shor.r the namcs ol Ramchanclerj i ancl Balram in the tenant column and the names of Narsi Reddy and Kanth Reddy in the names of pattadar column. 'rhLrs, this document also was not of any help to the plaintiffs to show that Chandoji or his sons Ramchanderji or Balram were owners of the suit schedule propea.ies.. Exs.A3 and 44 are the certified copies of pahanies for the year 1912-73 artl 1984-u5 respectively, wherein the names o1' Ramchanderji -/ 26 ' ai t.iq & ts6 2tt22 l)r-.Gl t,J O and Balram were recorded in the pattadar column for the suit schedule properties. tlx.A5 is the celtified coplr of the pahani for veat i 990-9'1 . It would disclose the n:rme of Jarrgoj i i,e. thc son ,o1' Rarnchandcrii also along "vith narries o1' Il anrctrilndelj i alcl Balra;n against the strit schedule ,prt4rerties trolh Ln the possr:ssc,ry column and tire' pattadar lolurnn. Ex.r\6 is the cenified copy o{' the palrani fbr tlie year 1993-94 and it rvould disclosc the natncs oi Rarnchanderji and Balrarn both in the pattadar and possessol')' colurnns. Excepl the revenue records, no dc'rcurncnts oi'tirle' ',verc filed by iire piairrtilfs.to shorv that iheir arrcest()r Chandoji had puicirased tire land oI i.hrr{ his hante 'r'a-q recordcd in the pattaclar colunln.

26. l-he contention of tire clefendants I to 7 was thal thc suit scheduie proltcrly was purchascd vidr' ciocument r -\os..505il ')6Jl ancl 50(r/ l!l(rt ciatcd

05.06 1968 in tire names of Ramchanderj i and Balram. Thr' a;Iour,r rvas paiil by R.an.rchanderji only, but nominally the name of Balrant was also inclucied. 'fhe revenue authorities mutatcd the name of Ramchander-ii in rr:spcct of' thc land in Survey No.6 t 1 /l and the name of Balram in respect ol the land in S u:.rey No.61 I 12 and that Balram and Vlohanlal executed a sale-curri-farn ily sett.lernenl deecl (Ex.B l), rvheretry the5r gat,e up thcil right over thc c-nttt.e land in Survey No.6l1 in favor of Ramchanderji,, since they sold away alother land in Survey No.698, in which Ramchanderji also had a share. Dr.GRR, J as 139 & 156 2022 27. PW.1 in his oross-examination admitted that the suit schedule properties 27 were registered in the names of his father Balram and his senior patemal uncle Ramchanderji by vimre of sale deeds, though he stated that his grandfather had purchased the properlu in their names. He thereafter admitred that his grandfather did not. purchase the property in the names of his father and his senior paternal uncle as deposed earlier. He also admitted that his father or younger patemal uncle Mohanlal had never personally cultivated the suit schedule property. He also admitted that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 never personally cultivated the suit schedule property. He stated that the suit schedule property was given on tenancy to Ramchander Naik and Lokya Naik and the tenants used to pay Rs.1,5(10/- for the entire suit schedule property and that they were now paying Rs.3,000/- or Rs.4,000/-. He stated that he came to know that his father Balram and his senior patemal uncle Ramchanderji used to :ollect lease amount from the tenants, which amounts to hearsay. He explained t_hat since he was away from home by virtue of his duties as driver, he had no knowledge of property affairs. lfe admitted that the plaintiffs never received any lease amount from the tenants. He stated that after the death of Ramchanderji and his father Balram, the tamily members of Ramchanderji got mutated their names in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule properfy. He also admitted that his father never filed any petition before the revenue authorities claiming that he got right in the suit schedule property. o 2A DT.GRR,J as 139 & 156]022

28. Thus, the evidence of this witness would disclose that he was having no knowledge of the property affairs since he was away from home by virtue of his dutiesasadriver.TheevidenceofPW'lisalsocontradictoryontheaspect' wherein he stated initially that his grandfathff purchased the property in the names of Ramchanderji and Balram, but later again stated that his grandfather did not purchase the property in the names of his father and his senior patemal uncle as deposed earlier. His evidence also would disclose that his father or Ramchanderji never personally cultivated the suit schedule property' Though' he stated that the properties were leased to tenants' the plaintiffs failed to examine any of the tenants named by PW' 1 i'e' RamchanderNaik or LokyaNaik, as stated by him' His evidence also would disclose that after the death of Ramchanderji, the property was mutated in the names of family members of Ramchanderji, but his father never filed any petition before the revenue authorities claiming any right in the suit schedule property'

29. PW.l in his cross-examination also stated that his grandfather Chandoj i owned a house at Kadthal and the same had been partitioned in 1970 among Mohanlal, Balram and Ramchanderj i, which would disclose that there was an earlier partition in the year 1970 among Mohanlal' Balram and Ramchanderji after the death oftheir father Chandoji in the year 1967 or 1968' 29 Dr.cRR, J as 139 & 156 2022 30. The plaintifls got examined one of their relatives by name MalketiNiranjan a; PW.2. He stated that pw.l was his son-in-larv by relation. The grandfather of PW.l by name chandoji was his paternal uncle. For the past 50 years, chandoji and his sons cultivated the land in Survey No.6l l to an extent of Ac.13-08 guntas on crop share basis till lgTl-72. In the year lg72-73, the original pattadar sold the said land to chandoji and his sons recognizing their previous services.

31. Thus, both PWs.l and 2 stated that the original pattadars of rhe suit lands sold the said lands in the year rg72-73. But no sale deeds were filed by the plaintiffs in support of their contention. As per the defendants, the sale deeds were of the year 1968. But, as per the plaintiffs, the sale deeds were of the year 1972-73. The defendants, who were the plaintiffs in o.S.No.10g of 20r6 filed the said sale deeds and marked them as Exs.Al and 42 in the said suit. The same would disclose that the plaintiffs in the suit are not aware of the details of the property for which they are seeking partition.

32. PW.2 in his cross-examination stated that chandoji had three sons Ramchanderji, Balram and Mohanlal. chandoji died 25 or 30 years back. Ramchanderj i died 10 or 12 years back. Balram died about r0 years back. Mohanlal died 16 y*ars back. He futher stated that he did not knor.v the extent of suit schedule prc,perty. S ince jeginning, Ramchanderji and his sons were 30 Dr.GR& J as 139 & 156 2022 cultivatingthesuitschedulelands.HestatedthathehadnotSeentherevenue record to know yr whose names the suit schedule properties were recorded' He also stated that he did not know whether Ramchanderji and his brothers partitioned their properties or not and how they dealt with their properties'

33. Thus, the evidence of this witness also would disclose that since beginning Ramchanderji and his sons were only cultivating the suit schedule land, but not Balram or his children or any other plainiills like Mohanlal or the daughters of Chandoji. Thus, the evidence of this witness is no way helpful to the case ofthe Plaintiffs.

34. The plaintiffs also got examined one Islavath Ramchand as PW'3' PW'3 stated in his chief-examination affidavit that he along with his father was cuttivating the lands of PW.1 and his family' The name of this witness was not stated by PW.l as he was cultivating their lands' His evidence was introduced subsequently by PW.1. PW.3 in his cross-examination stated that the total extent of the suit schedule land was Ac'13-00 guntas and odd' He knew Ramchanderji and Balram. About 10 or 8 years back' he sold his land situated near the schedule property. He stated that the l't defendant's father let out the schedule land to them and they cultivated the schedule land' During the lifetimeofRamchanderji,thefatheqgfPW.3cultivatedthesuitschedulelandas a tenant for a period of ten years' After the death of Ramchanderji' they were \ 31 Dr.GRR. J as 139 & 156 2022 paying the co\\'l .rnrount to his wife. He stated that the 1>laintiffs never cu ltivated the schedulc larrd

35. l'hus, thc evidence of this witness would show that Ran.rchanderji was culti'ating thc schedtrre rand and that he ancr his lather w.ere tenarts to him ror a period ol ten ( I 0) y:ar.s and after the death of Ramchanderj i, the:y were paying the cowl amount to rris wife. Thus, the evidence of this witness is helpful to the delendants I ro 7, r,ther than the plaintiffs. pw.3 further stated that he did not know in rvhosc name, the patta was granted for the schedule land. He did not see chandoji. LIe did not know the properties ofchandoji and how his children dealt r,r irh those pro;,er.ries.

36. 'l hus' the e'irierce of pws.l to 3 was of no help ro the oase or the plaintiff's to pro'e rhar the suit schedure properties were joint fanrily properlies and rhat all the plairrtifls were having a right or share over the same.

37. '['he de1-endant No. l K.Jangoji was examined as DW.r. The case orthe def'endants was thal the praintirfs were not having any share or right in the suit la,d and they rvere ncr entitled to seek Ibr partition of the suit rard. Their late father purchased the suit schedule properry with his own money through registered sale deed crocument Nos.505/196g and 506/1 96g, but r ominally got menliorcd the name of Iate Balram in the sale deeds, though hc had not contribu[ed any money. The said property was the self_acquired ploperly of his ./r ,12 Dr.(JRR. J rs i39 & 156 2022 father Ramchander:ji ar.rd his granrli'arher ciiando.ii had nothing to elo with the said propertv. The suit pt'opelty was not ancesl-ral propefi)' or ioint lamill' property.Hisfatheralonewasinexcltrsivepossessioll'of-theentire-Suit Schedulepropertycluring.hislifetimeasabsoluteownerandtlrenameo,lBalram was recorded as one ol the o\.vners of lhe suit land in the revenue records, I j[is latefatherpernritte<.lBalramtoclrltivatepartof,thcsuitlan<lforsomeperiod. IIe further stated that late Balram exccuted a sale deed in f-avor of their fathcr on 22.03.1975.. Balram was never in possession ol any parl t-'1' the -suit land since the said date. His tather got the' sard sate deed Valiciated' l)efble tfie Rl)o; Mahabubnagar by paying starnp rluty ancl penalty' 'lhe nante oi Bailam was tleleteclasjointpattaclarinthesuitlarrdsandthenantcofhislaLlrcralottcwas c<.rntinued as exclusive owner of the suit land As per the evidence of DW' l' his iather died on 02'01.1996 and till then he v'ias in posscssion o!' the suit land as crwnerandaliertlre<jeathofh.islather,healongu,ithhisotlrerbrotlrers corrtinuecl to hotd the possession of the suit schedule propefty ss absolute o\^rners. The plaintiffs 2 artd 3 had no connection with the sr-rii scheduie propefi]-.ButtlreycollLrdedwithPw.tandfiiedthepresentsuit.'i.heplaintiff.s werenothavinganyshareinthesuitlandarrtltheyvlererre.',elinpossessionol the suit schedule property at any time' 3g. 'lhe defendants I to 7 got filed Ilxs.Bl to t]56 in supporl of' therr contention. Ex.B 1 is the private sale-cum-family settlement deed dated 33 Dr.GRR, J as I39 & 156 2022 22.03.1975 executed b1, Balram and Mohanlal in f-avor of Ramchanderji. Exs.82 to B I I are tlre certifi ed copies olthe pahanies fior year 1 gg4-g5 to 2009- 10, which conlinuollsly shor.r, the names of defendants I to 7 at pattadars and possessors against r-he suit schedule properties. Exs.B14 ancr B53 are the ce'tified copies of'tlLe RoR pahanies in the names of defendants l to 7 against the suit schedule P..perties issued by Mee-seva, certified by Tahsildar, Amangal perlaining to the Fasli years from 1420 onwards till the year 1424. All these docurrrents ra'.urd continuously show the possession of defendants l to 7 as against thc suir.:rchedule propefty tiom 1994-95 tiri the date of filing of the suit bi, the plaintif f.s. 39 DW.l i, his cross-cxamination stated that he was having tht: originar sare deed, under which his fatr'rer and his brother purchased the property and denied that during the lif-etirne ol chandoji, their grandfather purchased the schedule lands in rhr- na'res of his sons nominally in the year 196g. He adrnitted that since 1968. Ilalrarn ,lirl not sell the rand under a registered sal<: deed to his fathcr. He stared th.t in the year 1ggg, they submitted Ex.B1 before MRo, Amangal lor mutalion. Ile stated that he did not know rvhether. an1, notices ra'ere issr-rcd b1 the .ev,:nr-re officials at the time of change of name of Barram. He denied that the sciredule lands were ancestrar properties and that there was no partition betu'ee, his rather and the lbther of praintirf No.1 and that the plaintilfs u'e.e enLitletr fbr partition and separate possession. I-re admitted that 34 Dr.GHR,., as lJ9 & 156 7022 0 the orders passed by the MRO including the nattes of defendants 4 to 6 in thc ROR was sel aside by the RDO, IVlahabubnagar'. ile denied the sug-gestiorl that Ex.B56 was created in collusion u,ith the revenue authorities, as the original \,vas ilot available with Kadthal MRO office.

40. Tirus, the cross-examinatron of DW. 1 was rnainly with regald to the execution of Ex.Bl by Balram and that the rlutation ploceeciings by the IvIRO without issuing notice to the son of llalLam i.e. plaintifl- No. I 41" Ex.B54 is the certified copy' of ROI{ dateCt 2i.12.20i6, Ex.55 is the cerlified copy of the old ROR tlated27.12.2016, ijx.56 is the ccrri trcd copv ol- the prooeedings of the MRO, Amangai datcd 3 I . 12. t996, [rx.57 is thc ccftiflcd copy ofthe pahani forthe year 1995-96, Ex.58 is the certifiecl copy ofthe order ciated 212.09.2016 passed in W.P.No.3252.1 of 2016 by the IIigh Coult.

42. The delendants also got exarnined one Kamballapally N{allaiah as DW 2' He stated that the farnity of the defendants w'as in possession of the suit schedule properties for the past many )'ears and that he was seeing them cultivating the said lands since his childhood. I'he plaintifls never cultiv'ated the suit lands at any point of time. He also attended the coolie rvork in the land of defendants number of times ar-rd that he u.as aware ol the det-endants in possession ol the said lands and l"ha[ ihcy were cujoying the said lands as owners to his knou,ledge . Dr.GRR, J as_ll9 & 156_?022 13. ln his cross-e xarnira tion, DW.2 stated that he did not knc,w the name o1' 35 the patemal grandfathcr of I't plaintiff and I't defendant. He did not know how the anccsrors ot' tl-Le paftie s got the properties. I Ie stated that he owned Ac.4-00 gr-rntas of lrLncl in Survey No.260 and that he was personrrlly cultivating the land. He had scen rhe pahanies pertaining to the schedule properties in the names of delendants i to 7

44. one lslavath l-.kya was examined by defendants 1 to 7 as Dw.3. Dw.3 stated that the land:; of the defendants were very near to his lands. He was having lands at l akara.iueuda licvenue village, Hamlet of challarnpally village under Talakondapally Mandal and that he knew the lands of defendants, which were near to his land. though they were in Kadthal village. He had seen the delendants culti'atirrp thcir lands for the past more than 35 years. He stated that the plaintifls ne,it:r. cultivated the suit land at any point of tirne. His lands were ad.jacent to tht: ands of the defendants.

45. In his cross-era'rination, he stalcd that the disputed lands were situated at a distance of I liilometer from his lands. I{e did not sec the paternal grandlather of thc r'' plaintiff and did not know whether any properlies were devolvcd irom rhc grandfather or the plaintin's. He did n.t know thar Ramchanderji and Re h au.r purchased the land in survey No.61 r . He stated that he did not see thc par'.irion documents among Ramchanderji and Brrlram. ."" 36 D r.GI{R. J as 139 & 15() 2022

46. I'hus. the evidence <l1'thcse witncsies \YoLlld not disclose that they r'vere aware of all the fhmily aflairs ol the plaintilfs and defendants I to 7. Their evidence would only disclose that defendants I to 7 and their father Ramchancierji \^/el.e cultivating the suit schedule properties f'or a long tirnr: fbr morethan35years.Noireofthesewitnessesstatedabouttheplaintifl.s cultivating the land or that any of the tenants were paying cowl amounts to the plaintilis.

47.]-hedocutnentatyevidencefiIerlbytheptailtillsalsou,orrld,nolshow that the suit scheclule propefties were ioint famil-v- properties l-he names of Ramchanderji and Balrarn were recorded fbr sotne years as pattadars and aftcr 1gg6, the niunes of delentlants 1 to 7 were mutated agarnst the strit scheciule properties,whichwouldonlydisclosethelongpcrssessionofrlef.endantsltoT in the suit schedule properlies. In the abscnce of any orai or dociLmcntarl' evidence that the suit schedule propefiies were.ioint farnily properties of the palties. the trial court altowing the suit lor partition is considered as illegal' As such, this courl is o1'opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled for partjtion ol the suit sihe<lule properties as claimed by them' POINT No.( ii): Whether the sale-cum-family settlement deed clated 22'03'1915 can be taken into consideration? \ Dr.GRR, J as I39 & 156 2022 48. As this dor:urnent is crucial to decide the issues in both the suits, it is 31 considered necessary to decide this aspect prior to deciding the other point.

49. The salc-c,m-family settlement deed dated 22.03 .1975 ,"r.as marked as Ex.Bl by the appellants, who were the defendant in o.S.No.44 of 201g in the said suit. The said document was in Telugu, but in chain language. Though DW.l, K.Jangoji stated in his cross-examination that he was going to file translated copy of Ex.Br, had not filed the same before the trial court.

50. The hial court had not taken into consideration the said document observing that: "13. Thus orLe of the sources of title claimed by the defendants is the sale of late Eialram,s share in the suit land on 2;2.O3.lglS under a sada sale deed to their father late Ramchanderji. The sada sale deed was marked as Ex.Bl. On perusal of it, I found it is not legible and it is in Telugu chain language. Even the numericals appeared-to be in Telugu language. It is not clear whether it is sale deJ or settlement ,leed -or sale-cum-sett [ement deed or relinquishment deed. "15. Furlher, thc defendant No.1, who was examined as DW.1, though stated in his cvidence that he is going to file translation.opy oiE .B"1, the record shows that no such translation copy of Ex.B 1 filed.,,

51. with the said observation, the trial court had not taken into consideration the above said doctrment.

52. The appellants filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 in A.S.No.l56 of 202.2 to receive the original sale-curr-family settlement deed with neat copy and true translation in English and a cop' of pahani patrika issued by the Record Assistant dated 38 Dr.GRR, J as 139 & 156 2022

14.05.1976 as additional evidence' K'Jangoji' the appellant No'2 filed an affidavit in support of the said petition stating that as they were under the impression that the said document was in Telugu' though the same was written in chain language, thereby they had not filed the neat copy ofthe document and translation in English before the trial court' With regard to the copy of pahani patrika issued by the Record Assistant dated 14'05'1976' he stated that the said documentwasrecentlytracedoutwhilesearchingsor.neotherpapersintheir home. As such, the same could not be filed in the suit' The above document would show that the patta of the suit schedule land stood in the name of Narsi Reddy and Kanth Reddy, sons of Yella Reddy' The name of their father was recorded in the possessory column and that the said document was material and important for thejust disposal of the appeals'

53. The respondent filed his counter affidavit contending that they were fictitious documents. The same were forged' fabricated and suspicious' No datewasmentionedintheallegedsale-cum-settlementdeed.oneoftheparties i.e. Ramchande{i had not signed the above document' The schedule of both the properties was mentioned as Survey Nos'611 /1 only' sale price was wrongly mentioned as Rs.5,025/-, but as per the contents of the plaint filed by the petitioners - plaintiffs in O'S'No'108 of 2016' they mentioned Rs'5'425/- as debt to be discharged by Sri Ramchanderj i' They also stated that sale-cum- family settlement deed was dated 21'02'1915 and also stated the extent of the 39 Dr.GRR, J as-139 & 156-p022 land in Survev No.(,98 of Kadthar vi[age as Ac. r6-00 gunras sold by Barram and Mohanlal. blrt nc extenr of the land in Survey No.69g was mt:ntioned in the alleged sale-cunr -farnirl' settlement deed. The contents of the plaint in o.S.No. 108 ol 20 r 6 u'as dif-fbrent iiom the contents of the alreged sare-cum- family scttlement d.eci and its translation in Telugu and English. The said document and its transrations were ambiguous. The same were not admissible as per Sectior.r 9 i ol the Indian Evidence Act, r g72 and the samc: courd not be received in evide.ce o, beharf of the petitioners - appellants in A.S.No.156 of 2022 54' with regard tc, rhe copy or the pahani patrika, he contencred that there was no attestalio, b',, any revenue authorities. The survey number was not mentioned anywhere r-he said document was created and fabricated. The petitioners appellarts had not mentioned in the praint with regard to the said document' There was; no pleading on the said aspect. As such, the sarne could no1 be received as cvirlence.

55. Fleard the learned counsel ror the petitioners and the leamed counsel for the respondenl on this aspect.

56. As the salc-cr,rrr.r- r'amily settrcmcnt deed rvas fired by the appelrants before the trial cor-rrl ir.sef a.rd the same rvas rnarked as Ex.B l in o.S.No.44 of 2018 and the appellarts are now filing its rranslations in Telugu and English -,. 40 t)r.(lltR,,i as 139 & 156 2022 and as the said translations are matel'ial to understaricl the contents of Ex.B I and as the original of Ex.Bl is also fiied bef-bre this Court and the appeal is nothing but continuation olthe sLrit. it is considered f-it to alloiv lhe petition rvith rega.rd to receiving the translations of E;t.Bi in Telugu and l'-.nglish

57. With regard to the copl,,of thc'pahani of the year 1975 peltair.ring to the BANDHO BAST record certified bv thc recolci keeper. as ihere is no pleading with regard to the said document by the appetlants in the plaint, it is considered not lit to rcceivc tlte same at this stirge- 5g. Iu rhe resu[, thc application is partly alior.ved iccciving t].re tlanslations of Ex.B 1 in Telugu and English and the application is dismissed rvith rcgard to receiving the certified copy of pal-tani patrika of the ycar 197-5'

59. The English translation of Ex.B 1 reads as follo*s: '"Sri Shubharnasthu on this the phalguna Shudha Dashami. Ananda l.Jatna year. Kamlikar Rtrlram and Mohan L,al. soris of Clhai-rdoji. do hcreb.v execuled this docunrent ir lavciur.i Kamlikal Ramchaudcr- S/o.(lhandoii. Ri'-r.Kadlhal V illage' that fiom out oi' the land puichasetl in Survey No.698, we Balrarn & Mohanlal havc soid tlle sallle lo Sathar. The land in Survey No.6l I /l extent Ac 6-25 guntas lell to yc'ur shrt' On this survey number and Survey No.6l1 /1 extent Ac 6-25 guntas, total extent Ac._13-10 guntas. having value t1s.5.0251 including our shares were allotted,/ said land belongs to Mohan l-al. we sold that land. given to Ra'mchnnder. encelbrth. rve do no1 have an1' right. tille or any sort o{' objection over ollr shared land in the above survey number' and on the land given to Ramchander' This document is executed on an oath betwcen three of us. -lhe Sd/_ BALRAN,I Sd/- MOHAN t,AT, Scribedbv ANANTH REDDY' -T 4L Dr.GRR, J as 139 & 156 2022 WITNESSES: 1 2 3 4 Sd/- K. Rarnreddy, Ompugdem. Sd/. Khasimji, Vasthavapuram, Member, Gram Panchayath Sd/- M.A.Sathar. Sd/- Kanthekar Miltry Balram

60. The said dot:ument would disclose that it was executed by Balram and Mohanlal, sons of Chandoji in favor of their elder brother Kamlikar Ramchande{i, S/o Chandoji and it would disclose that the family had another land in Survey No.698 and Balram and Mohanlal have sold the same to one Sathar. They also ritated that the land in Survey No.61l /l to an extent of Ac.6- 25 guntas fell to the share of Ramchanderji and on the said survey number and Survey No.611 /2 (which could have been wrongly typed as 6l I /1 for the second time) to an extent of Ac.6-25 guntas, total Ac.13-10 guntas having value of Rs.5,025/- including their shares was allotted / given to Ramt:hande{i. It further described that the above land in Survey No.698 belonged to Mohanlal and that they sold the land. Henceforth, they did not have any right or title or any sort ofobjection over their share of land in the above survey number and on the land given to Ramchanderji.

61. The above document would disclose that Balram and Mohanlal relinquished their s;hare in Survey No.611 /2 in lieu of their selling the land in Survey No.698 and appropriating the entire amount. The extent of the land in Survey No.698 was not mentioned in the above document. But the plaint in O.S.No.108 of 2016 filed by the appellants / plaintiffs would disclose the same 42 Dr.GRR, J as 139 & l56jLOZZ as Ac.l6-00 guntas. The respondent had not specifically denied that they were not having any land in Survey No'698 or that his father and Mohanlat had not sold the same to Sathar. The document was signed by M'A'sathar' who was also one of the witnesses. One other witness niune was shown as Khasimj i' The grandson of Khasimj i was examined as PW'3 by the appellants - plaintiffs in O.S.No.108 of 2016. PW'3 fited his evidence affrdavit in O'S'No'108 of 2016 stating that the plaintiffs (appellants) were having agricultural land in Survey Nos.6l1 /1 and 611 /2 in the limits of Kadthal village, Amangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District to a total extent of Ac'13-09 guntas- The entire landwasinthecustodyoftheplaintiffsandtheplaintiffswerecultivatingthe said agricultural land till date' They were the original pattadars of the said agricultural land. The defendant was no way concerned with the above land' TheentirelandinSurveyNo.6llbelongstotheplaintiffsasperthefamily settlement deed, which was executed in the year 1975 among the family members. In the said deed, his grandfather was one of the witnesses by name Khasimji, R./o.Vastavapuram' The family settlement deed was executed in the house of plaintiff No.l . At the time of execution of family settlement deed' he camealongwithhisgrandfatherandhewasawareoftheentiretransaction.In hiscross-examination,healsostatedthatthefamilysettlementdeedreferredin his chief-examination affrdavit was executed in the year 1975' His grandfather 43 Dr.GRR, J as 139 & 156 2022 was a witness to the said family settlement deed. He was not a witness to the said document.

62. Thus, the appellants (plaintiffs in O.S.No.l08 of 2016) had produced all the available evirlence in their possession as well as examined the available witnesses, who can speak about the said document. As the said document was a very old documer,t alleged to be of the year 1975 and rhe executants of the said document, Balranr and Mohanlal or the witnesses, none of them rvere alive and the executants Ilalram and Mohanlal had never raised any claim over the suit schedule property i.e. in Survey Nos.6r 1 ll or 61r )2 dwing their lifetime, which raises a prc:sumption over its genuinity, the said document can be taken into consideratiorL. Non-mentioning of Survey No.6r I /2. bLrt mentioning Survey No.61 1 /1 twice and mentioning the total extent as Ac. 13-10 guntas shows that it coulcl be a typographical mistake, which would not be given much weight.

63. The main objection taken by the learned counsel for the respondent was that the plaintiffs had mentioned the said document as an un-registered sale deed before the re'enue authorities and were mentioning the same as sale-cum- family settlement <leed in the present suits. If it was considered as a sale deed, the names of the v,:ndors or vendees and the sale consideration, were not clear. If it was considerr:d as a settlement deed, a[ the familv members were not M Dr.GR& J as 139 & 156 2022 parties to the said document. Sri Ramchanderji was not a signatory to the said document. 64- The trial court also observed that if late Balram sold his interest to his elder brother late Ramchande{i, since Ac.l6-00 of land in Survey No.698, wherein late Ramchanderji also had share was sold away, normally, in such cases, the question of sale would not arise and at the most a relinquishment deed or exchange deed would be executed and not a sale deed and they would create a doubt as to the very nature oftransaction covered by Ex'Bl'

65. But the trial court itsetf had referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Yellapu (Jma Maheswari and another v' Buddha R' Jagadheeswararao and others (cited supra) relied by the leamed counsel for the appellants (defendants in o.S.No.44 of 2018), wherein it was held that: "It is well settled that the nomenclature given to the document is not a decisive factor but the nature and substance of the transaction has to be determined with reference to the terms of the document and that the admissibitity of a document is entirely dependent upon the recitals contained in that document but not on the basis of the pleadings set up by the party who seeks to introduce the document in question."

66. Thus, the nomenclature of the document, whether it was a sale deed or family settlement deed or relinquishment deed or exchange deed is not material to consider whether the document was admissible or not. But it was based upon the recitals contained in the sdh 'rdocument. The above document is an un- registered and un-stamped document' .45 as-t3g & t 56-.,2( Dr.GRR, J )22

67. The.Hon'blt: Apex Court in the above judgment itself held thar the doiument alrectinpr re'linquishment of right in respect of irrmovable property requires cornpulsory registration. lhe un-registered and un-stlrmped parlition deed and the decd ol- rclinquishment of right in respect of imm,rvable property are not admissihlr: in evidence for primary putpose of di,,ision of joint properties by metes and bounds, but it could be relied upon 1or establishing collateral purposes i.e. severance of title and nature of possession of various sharers. if it is irnpcunded by paying stamp duty together with penalty.

68. Ihc aborc d.cument was impounded by the RDO, Mahabubnagar as per the proceedings I'lo.D/4645/88 dated 03.12.198g markecl as Ex.A5 in o.S.No.l08 of'20 1(. I'hc said procecdings would disclose that he examined the said document in the' light of instructions contained in the Indian Stamp Act, 1872 and ordercd lhc same under 40(1)(b) of the said Acr anrl collecled the stamp dur)r o1' Rs. 175/- t.gether with penaltv of Rs.5/_, a tc,tal amount of Rs. I 80/- rvas recovered fiom Sri K.Ramchanderj i, S/o.Chandoj i. 69- '[h,s, the fatl-er of the appellants had paid the necessary starnp duty and penaltl and got rhe document impoundcd in the year lggg itsell'prior ro filirrg of the suit for partition by the son of Balram by name Sajjanlal ir the year 2006 itsel f. 45 Dr.GRR, J as 139 & 156 2A22 70. 'I'he Horfble Aper coutt in Kale a d others v' Depu$' Ditector of' co,salitlati.on and brhers (cited supra), aRer revierving sever,rr judgmentS on family arangement / settlement existing till that date'.ob:ic-n'ed lhat: -: ^ , " 19. I'hLrs it v',ouki app'ear' {-rom a revie* ol the.dccision-s ,"ri"r"A ubcr"e thut the.CourLs have taken a vcry libet'ai. anci oi' the lamilv scttlcmcrrt. a4d.havc ;,Hi;;;l',he'alidin *"., i" rpn"f.l it and maintairr iL 'lhc central idea in tire "it-" made by th\: ('o"lrls is ti'rr il hy conscttt ol'parii':s a niitt", f,o, hecn settleC, rt slrouid ttct be allowctl !o tic r'- ^.".i*f-r 'ty -the parties. ro the agreemettt on fiivolous ol' "p;r"a u nrcnahlc grotltrds 20. A tlill bcrrch o( tirc ''\liah'rbrrtl [!i3h Coult lrr Ritmgopal t' i:rlriri nr* ancl another [Al]'' 1928 z\ll 641' (i491 has. also *. "i"* that a family arrangement could be'oral and il it a petition i; Court-containing a rc['ererrce io the *ra lr il'e p'rrpose v'as tnerelv to i'rfbr:m the cotttl "1"r, ;;lt;;;.J;, ;.;;;;;, regzrrf,irrg the arrangement' no Iegistration was llecessafv 21. Sinrilariy in Sitala Baksh Singh a1a o.tlr.cr-s . .-v'. '],ane "Ir)rr^a".iii*r, and other [AlR l9']3 Ou,.'lh 347i' r4ti-j491 n ""t f,"fO that ivhcre a Revenue Court lnerel-v gave er'fect to the ffiil;i;;, ilr"-""r"' ol the Rer"r:ttue cou( Jid ':]:-l:1"i* this cr:nnection thc follora'ing observattoris we i:e ," glit, urior. madc: -tn "ln ricw ol'rhis statcrtletlt inlala'5 ol'titt |laint ir is hardll op..tt to llrt' pl;trntill' n,'u l(' tll'rlt tll'rl Ex. l. the com promise' tcquiled rcpistratton when thcy thentselves admit that iL was ln - otd"r of the l{evenue Court and it-,ut it *u. given elfect to b-v the Revenue Court "nlbodi"d ordering mitution in accordance with thc [crnts of the comPromise We hold that a's dle llevertue Ccurt bf its proceeding gave efGct to thls ccmpromise' the iroceedin[s"and orders of the Revenue Court did no1 reqr{ c registration " \ Similarly in a latcr decision of thc sanle Coult in iiuiu*uii v. Sri Krishna Prasad and others IAtR 1944 Oudh 49 l. it was obserr ed a5 f6ll6r'r s: -NIst' \ T 4l Dr.GRR, J as_139 & 156 2OZ2 . " Applying this meaning to the facts oi. rhc prcsent case, it seems to us that the order ofthc nlutation courl merely stated the fact of the i'rnprorrri.c lrarilc hccrr ln.ircd at hetrreerr the plrties and did not amount to a declaration o1. urll. The order itself did not cause a chanse of legal relalion to the property and thereforc i dici n,rt declare any right in the property.,,

22. I'hc same view was taken in Bakhtawar v. Sunder Lal and othcrs ItLR 18 Alll. where Lindsay..t., speaking tb, the Division Bench observed as follows: "It is reasonable to assume that there was a bona fide dispute between the parties which was er entuzrlly composed, each party recognizing an itnrecedenr title in the other. In this view oithe cilcumslances. I am of opinion that there was no rucci:ssit1 to have rhis petition registered. ti dOes not in m1, opinion purporl to creatc, assign, linliL. extinguish or declare within the r.uri"nj of rhcse expressions as used in Section 17(11(bj 'oi o1- thc Rcgistration Acr. It is merely , ...liui lar t by rvliich the Court is informed that rhe partics havc come to an arrangement.,,

23.,Sirnilarll rhc parna High Cou( in Awadh Narain Singh and orhers r. Narain Mishra and others [AIR f eOi e"i +tfCi1 pointcd.orrt that a compromise petition no, ..UoJrino ur" lerm: 'f igr(crlrj)l but mer.cly conreying intorrrri6n L ii,,, (.lourr that lamill amangement had alreidy U..n urri..,l u, bctr.vecn the parrics did not require registiation unJ ._ U., lookcd inrr, tirr asccrraining the te;ms ol fimily ,,rung;_.;i 24. This []curt has also clearly laid down arrangerneril being binding on the parties to clearlr opcrittes as an estoppel so as to prec parties uhrr have taken advantage under the revoking or r:hallenging the same. that a lamih the arrangemcni lude any of the agreement from

44. In vicr,; c,['our finding that the family scttlemeur did nor contralene a;ry provision ofthe Iaw but was a legally valid and binding settlemenr in accorclance with the fu*] ,fr" ,i.r" "f Respondenr No. I that it was against the p.o,rlsion, of ifr. "* was clearll, u.rong on a point of law and could *t U" .r.irl*d. Sirnilarly the view of the High Court that tfr" ""_p,"Ini* requiled rellisrlttlion was also wrong in view of the cllar lacr !!r, thc nr Lrrarion peririon fiicd- before ,h.- ;;;r;",r, "iil_if (lommissioncr did nor embody the terms of tf,," " arrangcmen bLrt uas mcrell, in the nature of , .a_ur"rju,, 'f 48 l-rr.Gltll, J as 139 & 156 2022 . nr-rt "r'as rneant lilr thei inforrnation ol the Courl 'Ihe tligh Clourt lurthcr erred in la\v in not givirig el'i;c" to thc doctrine 'rf citoppcl *r-,i.n i"'utrruy, appliid wircncrcr any party.Lo.the valid tan;il) settlement trie.s to assail iL tt.,it It igt.'-Ci'urt ii:riher elreci in ni't .onsideringih" i'act that even iltlie tamill arraugenient regislered it'could be used ft'r a collateral ptl+ose' namel""-- lbr thJ purpose of sh,lvring the rlature and chatacter of posst-:si"n o1i the partics in purs'lance ci rhe family 'qettlcmet,t and also 1ot the puiposc of appiying the ILle ('!l cstoppcl ujr.icir {bllorvcC tioni ti,c coniluct olthe partic:; rrho having La[ei' I.reucill rrnCet the settlenrcnt keep th,:ii moulhs shut lol luli sevcn vears anil later '1ry to resile irom .the selrlemeni ln Shya-m Sundel and othcrs v. Siya Ram antl nnother [1973 AL'r 53] it was r:learl-v held by the Altahabad liigh Court tlrat the compromise could ha"e beerl taken into con:iideratiou as a piecc t'f cviderlce eyel" if it was nor regis;tered or ft)r. that matter as an evidcncc tr1'an antecedL'nt l;ti.. . "r."ful had hccn settlc(l aln'los1 se\crl [('I cight -l corsidelation ol thc'" lacts and."the 45. On u circuntslances and the law discuss0d abovr-' ra'c arc clcarl;v of tire opinion thiit-the orclels of the High C-'oufl as also that r-'l' Respondent No. 1 suffer from a substantial euor of la"r t.".rl,ing in setiotts injustice to the appellant b1- re- i'penilr; i rlisnttte heiore rhe proceedings ibr re-openir-rg thc samc rrc't'e slartc<j ltt not intcrfering to cortect thb clear enbr of lart contrnittcd b1 Respondent fio. 1, the Iligh tlourt failcd to excrcise jurisdieiiou vesied in it by law, and. therefore. the ordcl of thc Iligh Co-urt itself was legally enoneous and cannot be sustained lhi- cotttentions ,a-rsed b, the appellant are well lbttnded and n'r-lst prevail. whilc tlre contenrions aclvanced b1' thc rcspi-'ntierrt liril "r,hich clrL's

71. /rs seen frorn the facts of the present case, P\\/'1 in O S'No'44 of 2018 adnlitted tlrat there \,VaS an eaflier padition betwcen Rarrrchander.]i, t-]alram and Mohanlal in the year 1970 in respect o1 the house propcrty and the lamilv has immovable proper-ties to an extellt of Ac'6-25 guntas ir1 Suive"v No 6 i I i i at Kadthal Village, Amangal Mar.rclal. Mahabubnagar District in the name of Ramchanderji, in Survey No.6l I /2 to an extent of Ac'6-25 guntas in the natne of Balram and Ac.16-00 guntas in Sun'ey No'698 in the name of Mohanlal' BalramandMolranlalsoldthelandinSurveyNo,6g8allditllieuoftheshareol 49 Dr.GRR, J as 139 & 156 2022 Ramchanderji in :he said tand, had given up their right in Surv,:y No.61l /2, which was in the,ame of Rarram and admitted that they did not have any right, title or any objection over the said land to be given to Ramchanderji.

72. Thus, it was in the shape of a family arrangement, which took place prior to the execution o1'the document and the same was reduced into u.riting onty to make Balram and Mohanral bind over to the contents mentioned therein. The said document was binding on all the parties and even if it was not registered, it can be used for collaterar purpose for the purpose the showing the nature and character of possession of the parties in pursuance of the famiry settlement. The conduct of the parties can also be infened from the said document, as Balram and Mohanlar had never raised any dispute over the property in Survey No'611 /2 during their rifetime. The rule of estoppel also flows from the conduct of the parties, as they have taken benefit under the settlement having sold the land in Sun'ey No.69g. The legal heirs of the parties i.e. the sons of Balram and Mohanlal are arso bound by the said document and cannot resile from the said settlement. The trial court commifted an error in nor: taking into consideration Ex.B [. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the sate_cum_ family settlement dt:ed dated 22.03.1975 has to be taken into consideration for settling the dispute trefween the parties. 50 Dr.GRR, J as 139 & 156 2022 POINT No.(iiil: Whether the appellants, who were the plaintiffs in O'S'No'108 of 2016" are entitled for the ielief of declaration of title, rectification of entries in the revenue records and consequential injunction' as claimed by them? 73. The defendants 1 to 7 in O.S.No'44 of 2018 had filed O'S'No'1OE of 2016seekingthereliefofdeclaration,rectif,lcationofentriesintherevenue records and relief of injunction. The contention of the parties and their evidenceinboththesesuitsiSoneandthesame.The.plaintiffNo.2,thesonof Ramchanderji by name K.Jangoj i was examined as PW'l' Exs'Al to A42 were markedonhisbehalf.Theplaintiffsino.S'No.lOSof2016filedExs.Aland 42, the certified copies of the registered sale deed document Nos'505/1968 and 506/1968 dated 05.06.1968 respectively' Both these documents are in Urdu and their translations are filed. The translations of these documents would disclose that one Guduru Kanth Reddy and Guduru Narsi Reddy, sons of Yella Reddy had sold the suit schedule properties in favor of Ramchanderji and Balram' sons of Chandoj i for a valid sale consideration of Rs'500/- for each of the said properties and put them in possession of the same' The age of Ramchanderji was shown as 32 years age and the age of Balram was shown as 29 years by the date of executing the sale deed in the year 1968' These documents would disclosethatRamchanderj(EndBalramweremajorsandthattheypurchasedthe suit schedule properties in their own names. Thus, what could be extracted from the above documents was that Ramchanderji and Balram had purchased 51 Dr.(iRR, J rs 139 & 156 2022 Ac.6-24 gunl.as oi tand in Survey Nos.6ll 12 and 6r /r at Kadthal village, Amangal Mandal, Nlahabubnagar Distirct and that they rvere abs,lute owners of' the same. Ex.A3 is thc copy of the ord RoR and Ex.A4 is the c,rpy of the new RoR pertaining to the year 1989-90. Ex.A4 would disclose the names of legar representatives of R amchanderji were mutated in the revenue records against Survey No.6ll/l basing upon viraasath (succession) and against Survey No.6ll/2 b1, wav o'sale deed. Ex.A5 is the copy of the proceedings of the RDo vide proceedings No.D/4645l19gg dared 03.r2 )9gg for receiving the stamp dutv and pe.altl' undcr Stamp Act for varidating the un-r.egistered sale deed ExA6 is the copy of the MRO proceedings No.E/[:l/r996 dated 3l '12.1996. u'hich u or-rld show the names of legal representatives of Ramchanderji wcre recorded as against the Survey Nos.61l /r and 6l r 12 to a total extent ol Ac ll-09 guntas. Exs.A r to A20 are the copies ofthe title deeds, passbooks, which r'erc in the names of the plaintiffs for the Survt:y Nos.6l 1 /1 and 61 1 12 7 4. "l'he cross-exarn iration of pw. I also wourd disclose that the certifi ed copy of the fa,il1, se tllement deed was marked as Ex.A44 and ther.e was also cross-e xam inat ion .r the said aspect. But the description of the exhibits marked in o.S.No.rc8 or 2016 would disclose that Ex.A44 was; the attested copy of the F'lR issued in crime No.r0l of 20rg. r'hus, the triar r:ourt had nor Dr.G RR, J as li9 & 156 2022 taken proper Precautions ln merking the docrrtnents antl readirrg thr: said documents in evicience.

75. Though O.S.No.273 of 2006 was transferred fi'bm, ilre Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judgc at [.4ahabubnagar to thc (.t'ufl r-'i I ;\dditional District Judge, Mahabubnagar anc was rre-numbered as 0.s.No.,14 oi 2018 and the parlies as -,xeil as parl of thr: suit scl-tedule property (,^'as oQe aud thc same, tire lear-necl I Addirional i)istricr .ludge. Mahabubnrigai: instead itl- tak ing a joiht trial, adjuclicated Lroth O.S.No.44 of 2018 antj O.S.No.10[i of 2016 separalely' []c re.torded tlre evitler-rce separately, t', ut referrecl the documents which wcre rnarkctl in one case in the other case. 'l'he sale deecls o{ i968 u'crc not crhihitcd in O.S.i\lo.4zt of 2018. 'fhe orders of the RDO and Joint Ccllector rz, cre als'.; not rnarked in o.S.No.44 of 2018, But the said document*\ were c.onsiderecl irr O.S.No.44 oi2018.

16. The cross-e;<amination of PW.1 as weil as the evidence olD\&''1 would disclose that the respondents rclied upon the letter addre-*sed by the 'iahsildar. tnarl:ed as E;t z\23 r'i<ie letter Amangal Marrdal dated 03.06.20 li No.A/l025/2013 and the proceedings of the RDo marked u[der Ex.A24 vide proceedings No.Bl9322l20l 2 dated 08.05.2015 and the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Amangal Mandal marked under E,x.A25 dated 06.06.2015 and ol'the proceedings of the Joint Collector vide Case No.D1/40/2015 dated 27.08.2016' 53 Dr.GRR, J as 119 & 156 2022 They would disclor;e that on the rcpresentation given by the respondent i.e. Sajjanlal, S/o.Balrarn that the succession was done by the then -lahsildar his father was alivr: rvithout giving any intimation to his fath,:r or them, an enquiry rvas co.rducled and basing upon the repofi given by the 1'ahsildar, Amangal lhat the Tahsildar, Amangal granted succession through File No.B/l21196 dated 3 1.12.1996 by deleting rhe name of K.Balram and incorporating the nanres of sons of Ramchanderji and considering that Balram died on 21.10.2005 ,s per the birth and death register ofKadthal village and the Tahsildar, Amangal had not intimated to any one at the time of correction of records as well as successiorr and the total extent of Ac.l3_()9 guntas was irnplerner.rted in the names of legal representatives of Ramchanclerji, the RDo t considered the same as illegal. As the deceased Balram was having legal heirs his wi1'c. Shankari Bai and his son Sai.ianral and though notices.were issued to the sons of Ramcha.rlerj i, they orally informed that a case was lrending in the civilClourt and had nor responded in writing to the notices issued, cancelled the succession glantecl b) the then Tahsildar vide File No.u/l2ll1996 dated

31.12.1996 and grantecl succcssion in favor of legal representati.res of Balram in respect ol land in Sur',,ey No.61 1 lz to an extent of Ac.6.24 gunras situated rvithin the limits o{'Kadthal Village of Amangal Mandal equally.

77. The said ordel; of the RDO, Mahabubnagar were also upheld b), the Joint collector', Mahabubr:asar. The Joint Collector observecl thar thr: alleged sale .u ,.. 54 Dr.GRR. J as 1.t9 & 156 2022 deed (Ex.B l rnalked in O. S.No.44 oi 20 1 8) was not validated under Rule 22(2) of Ii.OR Rules, as such, it has no value.

78. The Joint Collector also obr;ervcd that successiou rvas gt'anterl itl-favor of the legal heirs cil' K.Ranichandelj i rn respect of Survey No.6 i 1 /-l u'hen Sri K.Balraj rvas aiive and as. the changes were not made as per the.nlles. ,r-ibseil.'ecl that the RDO rightly cancelled the prr:ogL'gdi11gs l'io:Ili l.2ir96 claiod J1.t2.1996 of the then N4RO, Aruangal arrd upheld the c.rrders of the RDo, ir4ahabubnagar. 'l-hc rerrenue authorities considcred the said documetrt as an un-registet'eC sale deed but not ar; a fal.)ily settlcrnerrt clced. As F.r.B I was llot.all rrn-reg,isterecl sale deed but in the natu-re of a family setLlement deed. as discussed alrove arid the docurncnt cioes not require registration and tailecl tc.clbserve that the saue was validated by the ItDo, Nlahabr,rhnagaI earlieI in tiie ye ar I 9Eii itsell. as 1-'ct' the proceedings marked under Flx.A5 vide Proceedings No.Dl464-5i88, rvhich lvas nor set aside by the Joint Collector, the same holds good. 'lhe c:ertitleC copies of the pal.ranies rnarked under F.xs.A29 to A42 would disclost: thc long standing possession of the appetlants titl 2009-2010 tili the tevenue ziuthorities affectecl change of the names in the revenue records. The unintenupted long possession of thc plaintil]..s ancl cr-rltivation of land-" by them for nrorc than 3C, years and as the oral evidence of the witnesses also would categorically disclose that the suit schedule property was cultivated by Ramchanderji and his sons. but not by Balratn and Mohanlaf and Balram and Mohanlal never raised any \ 55 Dr.GRR, J as 139 & 156 2022 objection nor apploached the revenue authorities / Civil Court for their shares or for the proceedri of cultivation during their lifetime, the plaintifTs are entitled for declaration of title over the suit schedule property even by adverse possession. Only-after the death of Balram and Mohanlal. their tegal heirs filed the suit along wittr daughter of Chandoji. The family members till filing of the suit in the year 2006 for partition have treated the said lands as belonging to Ramchanderji and his legal heirs.

79. Leamed counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bondar Singh and others v. Nihal Singh and othersT, wherein it was held that: "3. The main question for consideration in the present suit is as to whether the plaintiffs were in hostile continuous possession ofthe suit lands by virtue of which they had perfected their title to the land by adverse possession. Both parties claim to be in possession of the suit land. While considering the abole questir)n, the Court will also have to look into the plea raised by the leamed counsel for the appellants/defendants that the plaintiffs had come in possession of the suit land for a bricf period after the death ofFakir Chand, father of the defendant as "Shikni" that is sub-tenants. The plea of sub- tenancy was as such not raised in the written statement nor any issue weis fiamed by the trial Court in this connection. No particulars of allegerl subJease were given. Not even date of creation of alleged subJease was stated. The defendants have tried to build an argument based on plea of sub tenancy (shikmi)at appellare stage. In support of this plea they rely on certain entries in the revenue records. Since this plea pre-supposes possession of the plaintiffs. the defendants took the stand that they had taken back the possession of the land from the defendants."

5. The main question as we have already noted is the questicn of cortinuous possession of the plaintiffs over the suit lands. 'AIR 2003 SC 1905 56 Dr.GRR, J as 139 & 156 2022 The sale deed dated 9.5.1931 by Fakir Chand, father of the defendants in favour of Tola Singh, the predecessor in interest of the plainti$ is an admitted document in the sense its execution is not in dispute. The only defence set up against said document is that it is unstamped and unregistered and therefore it cannot convey title to the land in favour of plaintiffh. Under the law a sale deed is required to be properly stamped and registered before it can convey title to the vendee. However, legal position is clear law that a document like the sale deed in the present case, even though not admissible in evidence, can be looked into for collateral purposes. In the present case the collateral purpose to be seen is the nature of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The sale deed in question at least shows that initial possession ofthe plaintiffs over the suit land was not illegal or unauthorized. It is significant to note that the sale deed is dated 9.5.1931 and Fakir Chand died'soniewhere in the year 1949-50. During his lifetime Fakir Chand never disputed plaintiffs'title or possession ofthe suit land."

80. Even in the present case, the appellants and their predecessor Ramchanderji were in hostile possession of the suit schedule property for a long period. As such, the trial court ought to have declared that they perfected their title by adverse possession. Even though, Ex.Bl could not be relied upon for the purpose of proving the title, the said document together with the oral evidence of the witnesses and the entries in the revenue records for a long period put together and the conduct of Balram and Mohanlal not raising any dispute during their lifetime, would establish the possession of the appellants, and that they perfected their title by way ofadverse possession.

81. As such, the appellants, who were the plaintiffs in O.S.No.108 of 2016 are entitled for relief of declaration of title, rectification of entries in the revenue records and conseguential injunction as claimed by them.. \ 57 Dr.GR& J as 139 & 156 2022 POTNT No.(Iv): whether the judgments of the triat court in o.s.Nos.44 of 2018 and 108 of 20t6 arein accorrlance with the facts and law or liable to be set aside?

82. As the trial court failed to appreciate the oral evidence of the witnesses and failed to appreciate the documentary evidence, particularly the document marked as Ex.B1 <lated 22.03.1975 in O.S.No.44 of 2018 (sale-cum-family I I settlement deed) and failed to consider the principles for granting the relief of partition and separate possession, as well as principles in considering the { I adverse possessioD and the aspect of limitation, it is considered lit to set aside the judgments oi'the trial court in O.S.Nos'44 of 2018 and 108 of 2016. POINT No.(v): To what relief?

83. In the resull, both the appeals A.S.No.139 and 156 of 2022 are allowed setting aside the j udgments and decrees dated 29.04.2022 passed in O.S.No.44 of 2018 and 108 of 2016 respectively by the leamed I Additional I)istrict Judge, Mahabubnagar. No order as to costs. a 58 Dr.GRR, J as 139 & 156 ZO22 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in these appeals, if any shalI stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOrNT EEGISTRARY SECT1ON OFFICER \ To, 1 2 J 4 The I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (with records, if any) One CC to Sri Vedula Chitralekha, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri J Rammohan Rao, Advocate IOPUCI Two CD Copies VA/gh lg HIGH GOURT DATED:03101t2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE AS.Nos.139 & 156 ot 2022 ( s DRAFTS ) k q o o E STA r€r o 1 t JAII ZCI?: + , .4-l q ALLOWING BOTH THE APPEAL S ,,3 \ [ 3215 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE . PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI APPEAL S UIT NO: 139 OF 2022 Between: 1. Sri. Kamlikar Jangoji, S/o. Late Sri Ramchander, Aged about 70 years,,Occ' AOrocite & Agridultlre, Rio. Kadthal Village & Mandal, now presently in Ranga Reddy District

2. Sri. Kamlikar Narsinqhii, S/o. Late Sri Ramchander, Aged about 68 years, Oic. Agricutture, R/5.'Kadthal Village & Mandill, now presently in Ranga Reddy District

3. Sri Nageshwarji, Sio. Late Sri Ramchander, Aged about 65- years, Occ' - Agricult"ure, R/d.' Kadthal Village & Mandal, now-presently in Ranga Reddy District

4. Sri. Kamlikar Chandu, Sio. Late Sri Ramchander, Aged about 5-l years' Occ Agiicuiture, R/o. Kadthal Village & Mandal, now presently in Ranga Reddy District 5, Sri. Kamlikar Ashok, Sio. Late Sri Ramchander' Aged about 46 years, Occ' Agii"rltrre, R/o KaAthal Village & tVlandal, now piesently in Ranga Reddy District

6. Sri. Kamlikar Srinivas, S/o Late Sri Ramchander, Aged about 4l years, Occ' - Agiicrlirr", wo faottrat Village & Mandal, now presently in Ranga Reddy District

7. Smt. Kamlikar Anasuya, Wio. Late Sri Ramchander, Aged about 91 y.ears, Occ. Household Affairs, Rio. Kadthal Village & Mandal, now presently rn Ranga Reddy District ...Apperants / Defendants 1 to 7 AND .l . Sri Kamlikar Sajjanlal, S/o. Late Sri Balram, Aged about.63 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o: Kadthal Village & Mandal, Now presently in Ranga Reddy District

2. Sri Kamlikar Raju, S/o. Sri [tlohanlal' Aged about 53 years' Occupation , , Agriculture, R/o. Kadthal Village & Mandal, Now presently in Ranga Hedoy District 3 Smt. Kamlikar Jangamma, D/o. Late Chandoji, Wo Late Stakerji,.aged about 70 v"r;s, oCcupation Agriculture, R/o. Kadthbl Village & Mandal, Now pre'sently in Ranga Reddy District o,:*,:"r{,,;f, ,:fi:fii*ifl 6 j?ffi ' 3 ;r'':f"i ;;;;.;Elfl fo:&?}.i"Jfl ffiil,f,H*ffi',,.r,,;:_ ""^ ff 'iltr,i ftT,?i:,:?':.8 tr.J.? iiil,i,,"": "T,,LH,?.{|f ,fl fi X,?Sl_6?,".iil3ifl :#:.r;ii3fl E!l),onu.o '.i$:!1f,.,"[,Jhh[f ,]#j.#fr :i..iljsil:,.,,ij,,?k#ii33:gf, i,,rfi :: : ifr',ffihtr#,"IiriffiH,;3i:.*ir:a;:y:,.,??ffiii?; o,,k, e 8ms,g:Et ,?3,1iaiil:rii* Bflril, o,"o abour 85 years, occ 10 Ffl'*l!fll5ir,it [[".HI"Jk,Eill ff':lfout 67 years, occ Housewire, Appeal under section on ^r ^h^ ;;T' - "' - o rlo 44/2018 2s/04/2022 r;; Mahabubnasar e6 or cPc asainst the "'Respondents t Dgto D14 "; ;". ,^;:J':ilil# ffi::;::: ORDER: This appeal comino tre Juogmenil;;;"":: ll.tjif""'"n and upon pe and upon hearing the ,ri:tn" Apperants and of sri , o.rn'j'1"''1 ' "" ,"0]r,r' rrohan Rao, oor"*," to*u'-to*l,io' Perusing the grounds ol appeal' t"e material papers in the case Advocate for the No. 1 tr: 3 re Respondent "rii^tr;temra fni; Clurt doth Order and decrce as follows;_ 1 That the Appeal Suit I 2. That *" ,ro*#'.'^t':t herebv is afiowed. 2018 by trre r nooitiollloecree aside;and .rar District ,r* ;"^*111-0"** in o s No 44 or rnagar be and hereby is set dabd 2e 04 2c I I l i I i I l .. 1,. . . .t, .. ..*r,

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal; //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO EGISTRAR JOINT To,

1. The I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar 2. Two CD Copies SEC ON OFFICER l,+ HIGH COURT DATED:0310112025 DECREE AS.Nos.139 of 2022 ALLOWING THE APPEAL t \ \ [ 3215 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE . , PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI APPEA L SUIT NO: 156 O F 2022 Between:

1. Smt. Kamlikar Anasuia, Wo Late Sri Ram^chander Aoed about 91 years' Occ' "presently Rairsa Reddy Househotd arairs, dt "ii"ai#ivirijs; ri rr/lrnaii, District 2. Sri. Kamlikar Jangoji, S/o Late Sri Ramchander'Aged about 70 years' Occ' Advocate and Agricultur!,'il; iilih;i Vrltage &'"Mandal' presently Ranga ReddY District 3. Sri. Kamlikar Narsingh, S/o Late Sri Ramchander', Aoed about 68 years' Occ' Agriculture. R/o Kadthal Vili#"a'it'r'"'io'i' p'"t*ttv Ranga Reddv District 4. Sri Kamlikar Nageshwar, S/o Late Sri Ramchander' Aoed about 65 years' occ. Agricutture, R/o i;d"t'h"at'viiir;; &-M;"4;1, pres?ntly Ransa Reddv District 5. Sri. Kamlikar Chandu, S/o Late Sri Ramchander'.Aoed about 51 Years' Occ' Agriculture. R/o KaotnarLjlrIgIa"il";'liJl' [tes"titlvhansa Reddv District 6. Sri. Kamlikar Ashok' S/o Laie Sri Ramchander' Aoed about 46 years' Occ' Agricutture, nlo Kaotnar viffi L' ivffi a;l, ;;;.;ntty"Ransa Reddv District 7. Sri. Kamlikar Srinivas, S/o Late Sri. Ramchander'.,Aoed about 41 years' Occ' Agriculture, R/o KaotnatVlrlgJa"it'l';"iJi pi"itntrv"n'nga Reddv District AND 3l$""'.?l?1,'3i:f ,.:iiilHa"f, :liA?:fi District "t?Y:3:.liv"i'f ...APPellants 'R?:s#::lv ...Respondent Appeal under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.O4.2[22passed in O.S'No 108/2016 on the file of the lAdditional District Judge at Mahabubnagar i I I l ORDER: This appeal c:oming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and [Jecree of the Lower court and the materiar papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri Vedura chitrarekha, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri .J Rammohan Rao, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Orderr and decree as follows__ 1 . That the Appe,al Suit be and hereby is allowed; 2 That the Judgment and Decree dated 2g.04.2022 passed in o.s.No..10g of 2016 by the r Additionar District Judge, Mahabubnagar is be and hereby set aside; and

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal; //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The I Additional District Judge, tVlahabubnagar

2. Two CD Copies JOINT Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO GISTRAR r= \ SECTTION OFFICER VA v tI l HIGH COURT DATED:0310112025 DECREE AS.No. 156 of 2022 ALLOWING THE APPEAL ?/ YI