The High Court · 2025

1. D. AMARENDER REDDY, S/o Dayakar Reddy R/o Flat No2. Srisainath A^artmantq Srinirraqan2nar Namalanrrndrr SeclnrJgrabad

2. D Surender Reddy, S/o Dayakar Reddy R/o Sikindlapur Village. Shivampet Manda{, I\/edak District. (Died per LRs. - RR - 8 to 10)

3. Smt D. Sujatha, D/o Dayakar Reddy Wo Shivaram Reddy R/o Flat No 2. Sri sainatha Apts, Srinivasanagar, Namalagundu, Secunderabad.

4. Smt Prameela, Wo Dayakar Reddy R/o Sikindlapur Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District.

5. Yenugu Pedda Chandraiah S/o Narasiah, aged about 57 years; 6. Yenugu Chinna Chandraiah S/o Pentaiah, aged about 54 years, 7. Yenugu Srinivas S/o Yenugu Karre Ramulu, aged about 27 yea$, (Respondent Nos.S to 7 are R/o Sikindlapur Villaage, Shtvampet Mandal, Medak District)

8. D.Aruna, Wo. Late Surender Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Housewife. R/o. Sikindlpur Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak Distrtct. 9 Jaysimha Reddy, S/o. Late Surender Reddy, Aged about '15 years, ltrlinor Represented by his mother and natural guardian, Smt. D.Aruna Wo. Late Surender Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Housewife, Rio. Sikidlapur Village, Shivampet Manal, Medak District.

10. Bharath Simha Reddy, S/o. Late Surender Reddy, Aged about '1 3 years, Minor Represented by his mother and natural guardian, Smt. D.Aruna W/o. Late Surender Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Sikidlapur Village, Shivampet Manal, Medak District. (Respondent Nos-8 to 10 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Respondent No.2 as per Court Order dated 20.06.2023 vide l.A No.2 of 2022 in Aa Na )7P,1, a( )OOA \ Respondents/Respondents APPEAL SUIT NO: 2'/84 OF 2004: Appeal filec under Section 96 of C.P.C., aggrieve0 lty the Judgment and Decree dated 22 0) 2\)04 in O S No 2212002 on the file of the District Judge, l\,4edak at Sanga Reddy Between

1. D AMARENDER REDDY, S/o Dayakar Reddy R/i> Flat No.2. Srisainath Apartments. Srinivasanagar, Namalagundu, Secunderabad

2. D Surender Reddy, S/o Dayakar Reddy R/o Sikindl:rpur Vrllage, Shivampet It4andal, Medak District (Died per LRs. - Appellant Nos. 5 to 7)

3. Smt D Sulatha, D/o Dayakar Reddy W/o Shivaram ReCdy R/o Flat No.2, Sri sarnatha Apts. Srinivasanagar, Namalagundu, Secund :rabai

4. Smt Prameela. W/o Dayakar Reddy R/o Sikindlapur Village, Shivampet l\,4andal Medak District (Died per LRs Appellants 1 to 3) (Appellants 1 to 3 are recorded as LRs of the deceased 4th Appellant as per c o. dt 23 1 1 2017 made in ASIvlP.No 2l'.354117 dt.24.11 2017\

5. D Aruna, W/o l-ate Surender Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Housewife, Q/n Sikindlnrrr 1/illana Qhivarnnaf h/lanrlal hladrlr Diciri,-l

6. Jaysimha Redcy, S/o Late Surender Reddy, Aged about 15 years, lvltnor Representeci bv his mother and natural guardian, Smt. D.Aruna Wo. Late Surender Redoy, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Hour;ewife, R/o. Sikidlapur Village, Shrvamcet l\4anal, Medak District.

7. Bharath Simha Reddy, S/o. Late Surender Reddy. Aged about 13 years, Minor Represented by his mother and natural guardiarr, Smt. D.Aruna Wo. r^+^ (\,,-^^!-. n^^ Ll^,,..^..,i+^ crl^ clit.:,al^^,.- Lorc uursrr\-r: Village, Shivampet Manal, Medak District .1vsu oLr(JuL \r, ys<rrs, \JUU. aiu'j.,c11,irri. i\/u. t)^,.{1., A^^.t ^L^.,+ 17.,^^-^ r\euuy. \)iniuiijiiiii Appellant Nos 5 to 7 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Appellant No2 as per Court Order dated 20.06.2023 vide l.ANo.2 of 2022 ia AS No.2784 of 2004 (Amendment carried out Appellant Nos. 5 to 7 are as p3r C.O dt.20.061.2023) APPELLANTSi[)efendants 1 to 3 & 11 AND

1. D PRABHAKAR REDDY, S/o Ranga Reddy Agriculturr: R/o Sikindlalapur \/illaaa Qhirrarnnot I\/andal ttladrlz hicfrint

2. D. Sudhakar ReCdy, S/o Ranga Reddy Agriculture R/o Sikindlalapur Village, Shivampet lt/andal, Medak District. (Died per LRs. Ranqareddy 12io 14) 3. DR. Karunakar Reddy, S/o Ranga Reddy R/o Padmaraoragar, Hyderabad (Died per LRs - RR 9 & 10, 11) 4 Narasamma, D/o Ranga Reddy R/o Srkindlapur Village, Shivampet Mandal, IrledaL l-]iqt

5. D. Aruna, Wo S. Karunakar Reddy R/o Jalalpur Village, Bommala Ramavaram lvlandal, Nalgonda District. 6 Y.Pedda Chandraiah, S/o Narsaiah R/o Jalalpur Village, Bommala Ramavaram Mandal, Nalgonda District. 7 Y. Chinna Chandraiah, S/o Pentaiah R/o Sikindlapur Village, Shivampet lt4andal, I\.4edak Dist B. Y. Srinivas, S/o Y. Karre Ramulu R/o Sikindlapur Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak Dist 9 Vimala Donthireddy, Wo Late D.karunakar Reddy, Aged about 74 years, Occ. Retired Doctor, R/o. 6-1-121 , Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad - 500025

10.Smt Shilpa Donthireddy, Wo. Dr. G. Harish, Aged about48 years, Occ. tlnr:tor R/o F.-1-1)1 Padm:r?n4zc.ar -Qecunrierahad - 500025 .1 1 Dr Kavitha Donthireddy, D/o Late D.Karunakar Reddy, W/o. Ashish Gangasani, Age 50 years, R/o. 6-1-121 , Padma Rao Nagar, Himmaytnagar. Secunderabad, Hyderabad - 500025. (Respondent Nos.9 to 11 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Respondent No.3 as per Curt Order dated 14.02.2025, vide LA.No.2 of 2024 & !..a. Nlo 1 o! 2025 in A.S.No.2784 of 2004.)

12. Smt. D Bharathi Reddy, Wo. Late D.Sudhakar Reddy, Aged 75 years, Occ Household '13. D.Sugandhini, D/o Late D.Sudhakar Reddy, Aged about 56 years, Occ. Household 14 D.Sreedhar Reddy, S/o. Late D.Sudhakar Reddy, Ag Business R.R-12 to 14 are Rlo. H.No 8-2-293/82/L, P MLA Colony, Banjara Hills. Hyderabad. ed about 50 years, Occ. lnt hln 4OlR Rnrr{ hln 1 ? (Respondent Nos. 12 to 14 are brought on record as LRs of deceased Respondent No.2 as per Court Order dated 06.03.2025, vide LA.No 4 of 2025 in AS.No.2784 of 2004) RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 1 OF 2007(ASMP. NO: 2061 OF 2007) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit f iled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to i'esti'aln the Respondcnts 1 to 4 herein, their Agents, Servants, Repi'csentatrvcs etc., from making any constructions, cutting the trees, carrying on the quarrying operations and altering the nature of the suit schedule properties. t.A. NO: 3 OF 2007(AliMP. NO: 2258 O F 2007) Petition uncer Section 151 CPC praying that in the lircumstances stated in the affidavit filec irr support of the petition, the High ccurt may be pleased to receive the certified :opy of Agreement of Sale-cum-irrevc:able General Power of Attorney dated ol 122aa4 (Document No 4320/2004) and certified copy of Sale Deed dated l4 l5 2007 (Document No.4795/2007) ir the above appeal as additional evidence as Exs.Xl and X2. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(ASMP NO: 2253 OF 2017) Petition uncier Seclion 15'1 CPC praylng that in tht :ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High ilrlurt may be pleased receive the certified topy agreement of sale cum irrevoc;it)le General Power of Attorney dated 29.04 2006 (Doc. No .526412006) and certi ied copy of sale deed ,J^.^7.1 1' Aa n.'f c . '...'A (Doc.No.6155/2006) and sale deed dated 06.08 2008 (Do: No.4528/2008) in the above appeal as additional evidence as Ex.X6. X7, XB ancl )(9 /T'\^^ Nl^ A/,!?A/1nnA\ i\O.O+i il;ZwuOi \--C a^t^a u<ir-u 14 i1 ^^l^ soiU lA NO: 'f OF 2023 Petrtion under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in ',ht: circumstances stated +^ :^ +a^ ^J-ti.J^.,i Iil^d (u in iilC aiiiUiiVii receive the certified copy of the sale deed dated 20.05.2006 (Doc No.5943/2006) in the above appeal as additional evidence in the abovr: appeal as additional evidence. as Ex.X-1 0 ..' -.,^^^.+ ^{ rl-.^ ^^+;+i^n iiiU!j ',: biiijpOii Oi iile [iCtiiiiiii. l'^ ^l^^_^n 'i'<iy e9 Preoreu r}.^ Lli^!. a, , '+ 'r^" iiiU i.iVii vi'u'( Counsel for the Appt:llants colLa A ttTu oErrnv Sri M. Narender Reddy, Sr. Counsel for SRl. M Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 8: SRI UMESH SIN(;tl Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 9, 10 : POLAVARAPU Counsel for the Respondents: Sri P. Sudhakar for M/s PROGRESSIVE LAW Etcrll sRt sFtl.ilvAs Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 11 : SRI VENKATA MAYUR Counselforthe RespondentNos. 12,13 &14 : SRITFOTAGOPINATH The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA cRoss oBJEcrroNs (sRl No.15356 0F 20()5 IN AND APPEAL SUIT NO.2784 OF 2OO4 COMMON JUDGMENT: This appeal is fited aggrieved by the judgment and dccree clirtr:d 22.03.2004 in O.S.No.22 of 2OO2 on the file of Dislrict .lr-rdge, Medak at Sangarecldy bv the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and l1 in the suit. Thc parties herein are hereinafter referred to as rrrraved in lhe suil.

2. The facts o[ the case are that the plaintiff is the younger brother of dcfendant Nos.'l to 6 and the younger brother of the falhcr of defcndant Nos.l to 3, namely late Dayakar Rcdcly. Defendant No.7 is the younger sister of plaintiff, while defendant No.6 is his elder sister. Dayakar Reddy passed away in 1994, leaving behind defendant Nos. 1 to 3 as his sons and defendant No. I 1 as his u,ife. The plaintiff s father, Ranga Reddy, passed away in 1973, and their mother, Devakamma, passed away in 1996, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant Nos.4 to 7 as her legal heirs. 2

3. '11're suit lands are joint lamily properties l]r:l . need to be pzrrtitioncd b1' rn<:tcs and bouncls. The joint fzrrni l c<tnsists o1- thc plair-rtiff arrd delenclant Nos. I to 7. Thc {lmt1-v ou,ns cxlcnsir,c aglicr.Lltrrral lands and rr residenti:rl in r.,r-. 1,, ,rt-, tht' Andhra l)raCcsl-r L:rrd Ceiling Act (for short llri, Act) came into existence, zrnd the plait'rtiff and his lrrrthers filed dcclirrirtions un(.lcr the Act. 'l'he L:tnd Rcforms'I'rjlrrrnal treated all agricultur:rl llrncls as Ilindrr Undividcd , r:ir-rt Farnily prol)erlies and corrtyrurccl rhe sharcs accordingly.

4. The plair-rtill requesLed dclcndant Nos, I tO , to partition thc' joint famill' cr<>1;crties on 08.Otr.2OO1, but thrrr rcfused. The pl:rinliff also sollghl. help frorn contmon friends irrr I relatives to prt viril upon r ht' dci'cndants to partition tltr propertics. Holtt:ver, thr-' rk:[r:ndanLs remairr adamant ancr refuscd to p:rr tition. As a rcsrLlt, thc plaintill- liled rhe suit.

5. The defenrl:rnt Nos. 1 to 3 and 11 hled a u,ntr -r1 statement dcrrvinB the existt:nce of a joint family between th,' p,lainriff and [hcmselves. The.,, claimecl thaL thc plaintiff s allcq:rlitns of joint posscssion o1' thr: suit lands u,crc false and invr nLed for the purpose of suit. Ar:cordir-rg to thc defendants, DeLr akar Reddy, the f:rthcr of deli:nd:rnt Nos. 1 to 3, passed arval, in 1994, and his name was rcplaccd bv his sons in the revenlu. rccorcls. The 3 delendants stated that their ancestor, Venkat Reddy, died in 1947, leaving bchind three sons namely Narsimha Reddy, Ram Reddy ancl Ranga Reddl- u,'ho succeeded his propcrties. They claimed that delcndant Nos. 1 to 3 sold some of the lands to defendant Nos.8 tolO under a registered sale deed in September 1999 and put them in posscssion. The defendant Nos.8 to10 are alleged to bc bona ltde purchascrs who have installed a bore well in the land. The deiendant Nos.l to 3 further claimed that thcre n,as an oral partition among the brothers during 1968, which u,as actcd upon b1' them. As per the alleged partition, specific lancls fell to the share ol Dayakar Reddy, who was in exclusive possession of those lands. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 providcd details of the lands that allegedly feil to the share of each brother, including Dayakar Reddy, Prabhakar Reddy (the plaintiff), Karunakar Reddy, and Sudhakar Reddy. The defendant Nos.I to 3 claim that after the partition, each party is in exclusive possession ol the lands that fell to their respective shares. The rcvenue records were mutated accordingly. They state that a house bearing No.5-1-166 at Jambagh, Hyderabad, u,as purchased out of joint family nucleus, and plaintiff took the share of wet land, which is more fertile and costly. 4

6. Thc dr:fcndant Nos. 1 to 3 lurthe r clerimcr lhat tr-r t he dr:clarations mri(le under the Act, cach party slrri,.;t'd tlle lands that [ell to th,'ir respectivc sirrrcs, zrnd thc lri tcl Relornrs Triblrnal acceptc(l thc samc. As sLrch, neither rlr, plairrrill nor thr: othcr defenclirnts can no\t,cl:tinr joinr [:rmilv sr rLt us and joir-rt possession ol'thc Iands. The defertrlant Nos_ 1 to 3 rrlso point or.lt tllirt the plairrtil'sold some ol his l:rnc1s allot[t:d to ris sh:rre and rt:r'r'ive cl the sa rt co n sideratior.r. 'l'[rev staLcd thirr I ttre ]ancls r.,r,r:rc joint family propcrties, thc plzrintiff oughl r(r ltave knon,n thc iroundarjes :rnd grven them in Lhc plaint. 'l'tc dctendant Nos. I to 3 ltrrthor statcd that thlrt thc house bcr r-ng No.3 7O fcll to the shart: of defendant No.5, nas sokl b1 him and his darrghler on 0(r 09.1995 througir a registercd .;rLe :eed in Iavour of Motrd. Rafi and Vishnanatham and tlrc s,rne is ilithin tlr. knos lt dge o plaintiff.

7. 'l'he de fendztnt Nos.1 to 3 lur-thcr claim tl-rzLt tlter the or:rl p:rltition, Dayai,-ar Rcddy instaJled a borc ucll r:r Sy.Nos. I l,

2.58- zrnd 8 and took a Service r:onnection from l]rc Electricily Dci)artmcnt in eis name, which was not oLljcr:ti rl to b_v ttre plainti[[ or other defendants. Similarly, the plainrr'l installed a borc well in his land in Sy. No.7 irnd took servict t;onnection, 5 which establishes that there is an oral partition and that the suit iands are not in joint possession of the parties

8. The delendant Nos.4 and 5 filed their writtcn statemcnt stating that the suit propcrties are joint family properties and they are saiting rvrtl'r the plaintrff. The defcndant Nos.6 and 7 hled a separate $'rittclt s[atement, contending that all thc suit schedule lands arc joint family properties in which the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 7 are entitled to their rcspcctive shares. They claimed lhat thcrc was no partition of the suit lands and that some lands arc being cultivated by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and defendant Nos.6 aud 7 for convetlicnce \t'ithout any partition.

9. Defendant Nos.8 to 10 filed a separatc written statement, sLating that no joint family is subsisting betwecn the plaintiff and defendant Nos. I to 7. They claimed that plaintiff concocted the story of a joint famil-v tvith an ulterior motive to knock away some of the suit lands purchased by defendant Nos.8 to 10. They stated that Dayakar Reddy died in 1994, and the name of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and his wife defendant No.11 were recorded in the revenue records in respect of the lands after due inquiry. 6

10. Delcnclzutt Nos.8 to 1O claimed that rh, v prtrchilscd specrfic lancls fr ont dei'end:rnt Nos. 1 Lo 3 througl.r : r,3istr'rcd salc c1e eds ancl tht r, trrc in exclusivc Jtosse ssiou ol r rc prrrchasccl lands. Thcv stil Lrcl that thc lathcr of clclendant No: i ro 3 fitcd a rleclaralion strrring theLt the propcrties standing in ltis n;rme arc exclusir,c prol;cr-1ie s that fell to his share in thL' , )iill lrrrrtition. The plaintr[l- sr; 11 some of lhc lands that lell to ]t \ sll.,re, ancl tirerc is no .joi:tt lirmily subsjstlitg bct\\.cen tirL plairiUlI and detcnclant NOs I to 7. 1 I. Dt-'lcncl:ur Nos.S to 1O furthcr claimed |hat ll('v irrc bona hde purch:rs,:rs rvho det eloped thc lands and arr rn e xclusive possession oi t)rr: purchased Ianrls. In thc evenr r,l' tlrc court concludjng lltar thc plaintiff is cntrtled to partitrr n. dcl-endant Nos.S to 1O rr:r1rrt:sted that thc propcrties purchas( (l lry thcm be allottccl [() th(' ,\hare of defendant Nos.1 to 3 anri I rt'ir rnother defenriartr No.I I ro avoid muttiplicrty of Iitigation 1,2. tsasirrg or . the above p.lcadings, the trial ( ti.urt framed lhree issur:s. ()n behalf of the plaintiff, p"vs to 3 were cxamined an<l Flx.A. 1 ri,as filed. On behalf of del'er c]:rnts Dws.l [o 5 u ere exzLnrined and Exs.B. 1 ro B.33 u,ere tn: r]<ecl. After frearing:rli thc p:irties, the trial Court decreed thc sLrrt rlcclaring that plaintiff is cntitled to T /l3r'' share in the sr-rit schedule 7 properties- Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by defcndants 1 to 3 and 11 I3. Heard Sri M.Nzrrenclcr Reddy, lcarned Senior Counsel zrppearing lor Sri M. Srik:rnth Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Srinivas Polavarapu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 lo 3,9, 10 and 33, Sri Thota Gopinath, lez,rrncd counsel for respondent Nos.12, 13 and 14, Sri V.Venkata May'ur, learned counsel lor respondent Nos.3 to 5, Sri Umesh Singh, learned counsel lor respondent No.2 and Sri P.Sudharkar, learncd counsel appearing for Progressive Law firm for respondent No. 1 1.

14. The contention of lcarncd counscl for thc appellants who are defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and 1 1 in the suit is that the judgment of trial Court is contrzrry to [au,, u.cight ol evidence and against the probabilities of the casc, as thc properties were alrcady partitioncd among thc joint family members and they were in possession and enjoymcnt of respective shares. The trial Court erroneously held that thc suit schedule properties are joint family un-divided propcrties when the oral and documentary evidence on record establishes the lact of partition of properties among the family members. The Court below erred in placing reliance on Pws. I to 3 and Dws. 1 and 2 when the documents 8 exhibited in tl-re suit establishes rhe partition efij cted ltetu,ccn tlrr: joinL iirntiiv membr:rs. The Court beiorv ought tir h,rr e st:r.n tlrirr thc L'cili:tg cieclaration qivcn try the rnembcrs r1 jornr lanril_t itscll- clcarly ,:st.:rblishcs partition of joint lamilv pr rpertir:s. 'l'1rc: plca<Lltgs of tl-re plaintilt itself sirows that the \,et larrcls lrre cultir.atrrl b,1' thc. joint [amilr- members separitteh.and Lhev itrc in enjovnrent of thc s:tmc scparately itself estaltli;hcs (he rtrirl p:t|liliorr as pleaclcd b], dcfcndanf Nos.1 to i) clrr rrg tr(.\..;rr. 19o8j. iic further contcnded rhat the plainLr,t has not apprrrirchccl the collrt rvith clean hands in scekinrl the rcliel ol'

1.r:u ti1ion. TIrt piaintif{' hirnself u,as the benclicia l. urrdcr t hc carlicr or;rl partrtion and norv after deriving bene [tt:; ou1, 01' thc said propr:rtic s. he is pletzrding lhat there \\ias no (t11 .l cr partiti()n aLr<l is tr-r irrg rc, takt: arlvarrLage of certain rccor.(.s Lo dcpr-ivc defcndant Nos. 1 to 3. Hc lurther contended that ihe jr-rdgmcnt ancl rlcr:rt'c of the trial Court is illegal and unjusl r: n 1 thcrchrrc, prar cd this C,tun to sct aside the said impugnr:d j,.r il1mcnr. i5. Thc [ea:-ned counsr:l for the appellants wotrlri s;ubrnit that cYen thor-rgh tit-jre was e:rrLer partition bctwecn Lhe parties basing on [h,] oral partition, they submitted their. declaration bclbrc the Land Revenuc Tribunal which rvas r-rot c rnsiderred by the trial CourL, further thc property allotted to the;r,r orally rvas 9 sold away by the parties initially b1- taking valid consideration which itseli sho',r,s that there is earlier part ition between the parties u,hich r,r,as not cottsi<lcred by thc trial Court. The evidence on record clearly shorvs that plaintiff and othcr defendants are allotted u'ith spccific properties and the plainriff u'as allotted with more wet lands than thc dry lands and cnjoying the properties independently and the rcvenue entries itself sho$,s that earlier partition u'as acted upon Thercfore, there is no qucstion of joint family property and suit is filcd only to cause loss to delendant Nos.I to 3 and their purchasers- As such, requested the Court to sct aside the judgment by dismissing this suit.

16. The ptaintiff in the suit and defendants 4 to 7 havc filed cross objections chalienging a parL of rhc decree sofar as Sy.Nos. 19, 23, 282, 3O8, 31 I ancl 309 o[ Sikandlapur Villagc, Shivampel Mandal, Medak District stating that the court below ought [o have seen that body ol the plaint as r,r'ell as in the rvritten statement and in thc evidence there was a reference about the above survey numbers. The court below ought to have decreed the suit in respcct of lhe above survey numbers also and that in the partition suit the plaintift or the defendants are in the same position and any of the party to the suit can 10 plcircl about non rr.rt:lusion of some o1'propertir:s in r.te schcclrrlc arrrl Lhe Cour-t c,rtr take trote of suc:h submission o,t rhc basis o1 cvjrlcrrr:e tLncl cltcrt't: thc suil or prrss olher ordr-'r'includitrg lrll thr' propertics. :rrrl the Court bclot outght to hav,. rncluded tltc sanrc ir-r rhc pru:rirrinary, decrcc. As such, prayed llLis (lourt lo inr: lucle thc sirid propcrties.

17. On thc otltrr h:rnd, responclents 4 and 5 filed u.rittt,n argLlrncr-rts stati;rq thert thcl .rrc the sisters of [,:rtc D.D.ryakirr- Rerl<lr' q'ho ts 1l'r(' father of dclcndant Nos. ] .r: 3. L:rlr: D.l)avaknr Redrh , Prabhakar Rcdcl1', SudhakeLr Flc-dc1v, iutd K:lrlrr-rakar Reclilr :rlor-rg u,ith rcsl;ondents 4 zrnrl 5 are Lirc childrcn of Iate Rirnga Reddy. Latc Venkat ticr.ldy is thr: conrmon irnc'rslr)r ;rnd original ()$,ner of the s tit sr:hedlrlr: prol;erties, l:rre Ranga Rcdd1. is thc son of late V:nkat Rcdcly ancl father of rcsltondent Nos.4 and 5 and ;ttrers havc succeedcd Lo t h(, suit schedulc properties. Tht Irnd ceilirrg opcration is affcctcd in the ye ar 1975 whercin they join tl-v sttr-rcndered lancls to the Governmcnt which werr: s ubsequently zrlloLtccl to r.aiiorrs tcnants under Section 38E o1 :he Tenancv Act. Thc sale proceecls of the house at Jambagh, Hyderabacl antl house at M;rrrr:dpally are shzrred by all the 1t tlties u.hich 11 shows thaL the sairl houses u'ere.loint fami\1' properlres and all tl're brothers excluding respondent Nos.4 and 5 have jointll' sold ttre propcrties to S.S-A. Hatcherics and that thc land to an exLent ol Ac-2I.10 guntas in Sy.Nos.180, I81 ancl 182 and cattlc shed at (;omaram village u,as also jointly solc.l b1. all rhc brolhers cxcluding respondcnt Nos.4 and .'r ancl all of thcm shared the sale proceeds equally, that alL thc brothers havc .jointly sold the properties to one P- Ranga Reddv and salc proceeds rrcre sharcd among themselves. Fltrthcr t trc cviclencr: of Pvr,.3 u'ho is a common relative of thc parties dcposed that properties arc in joint possession and Ex.B.2 r'vl'rich is the depositior-r in O.S-No.23 of 1976 of late D.Dal,akar Rcddl'' rtho is thc father of defendants I to 3 shows that thc lands are in lamilv posscssion from the ancestors and all are in possessi,rn ol the szrmc. The land Ceiling Tribunal considerecl all the declarcd i:rnds as joint family properties, and surrendcred surplus lands to the Governmenl u,llich itself shou's that thc properties are joint lamily properties and rhe admission of late Dayakar Reddy itself shows that properties arc in joint possession of lamily members and the memorandum of understernding dated I 1.05.1973 does not speak about partition of propertics, but mentioned about future partition. ____J_ 72

18. Du il-Ar.nrrr crrder Iteddy rr..as minor in the t:rir 1968 ancl his depositior-r i. ir-r-ele,. lrnl. trx.ll.1 demonstr.ttcs rh.iL I)roperL-\ is in joirrl posst ssion irrrd hent.c the cletim o[' 1ti rtitiot't it'r t]tt. vr:irr 1968 docs rrct hrilrl goocl. llc rclicd on tlti .jrrclgrnenI in Vineeta Sharm.a Vs Rakesh Sharmal and Scr. r,n (r of thc I-{i:rdu Srtccc:ss on Acl conl'ers thc status of t.,,parc,.:lrer orr daughter born I,r'tiire or afler arntcndment as thc s ru u.ith szrrnr. riqhts :rnd iiabil rii s. Irrrrtl:er in Ganduri Koteshwa:r.arnma and another Vs Chakiri Yanadi and another2, it,,r,as rirsc6u"6 ,n.,, tlrc CoLU I can rrrorlifl' ltrcliminirn' decrce or rnr rC tLran onc: prclimrnan' dr('r'( (' to n:tss tl'rc llnal clecree u.hir.lr inr:lrrdes tht: shares ol clauglttcr' .ts l)cr ame nded Section 6 r I thr' Hinclu Successiolr Ar:t ; rrd pravt'd to clismiss this appeal. I(). Thc respr rrdc,nt Nos. 11, l.l, 13 :rnd l.i :r,.lo1;ted lhc arguments ol lcspor-rdcnt Nos,9 itnd 10. Tl-rc i o.ttention of rcspondcnl Nils.') ..lnd l0 is thar thcre wzrs no pri,r- parr ition in this casc trncl tht clocurncnts fllt--rl t,r. the defenrlarn: itsell shorvs that propcrties r,.r're solrl bv th<' rnembcrs of joint lanil). jointlv and sharcd thc sale proceeds. F-urthcr, tl'rough ti'rey filed a declaration beforc the L:rnd Ref<rrnts Tribunal statirLg thztt therc- is an ortrl partition, th<-- samc u,as not accepte<l b1. thc Lancl I (2020) 9 scc L , 12011) 9 SCC 788 13 Reforms 'lribunal and the Land Reforms 'lribunal dclctccl thc lands lront the joint family properties and allotted to the lenants and 38E certificate \\'as granLed which itself shows that tht:re ts no oral partition and the cvidcnce of lather of dcle r.rdal'rts I to 3 in O.S.No.23 ol 1976, iLsell shou's that thc suit laucls are in joir-rl lamilv posscssion from the anccstors. Thercfore, thr:re is no qucstion of prior partition in the present case and all thc properties arc joint lamily propcrties. Thereforc, there is no illcgalitv in rhe jlrdgment ol trial Court and no merits in the present appezrl.

20. Consicicring thc submtssions madc by the counsel :rncl thc material on record, now, the points to be determined arc : l. Whethcr the suit schedulc properties wcrc alrcadl' partitioned orally or thc same were joint family and urr ciivicied properties ?

2. Whcther plaintifl is cntitled for partition of the suit schedulc propcrties, if so, he is entitled for 7/ 13tr' share in the suit schedule properties ?

3. Whether the judgment of trial Court nccds any interference? 14 ) POINT NO. 1 2l. ln thc tri:rl Coltrt on bchall ol' plainl.ilT I\r s. I to ll u.erc examined, l.lx A. L Ltertillccl r.op_v ol Khasra p;rh:rr i ftir rltc vcitr 1954-55 u'as lllc(l itrlcl on l;t.h:rlf ol <lc[-endanrs l)r.:. ] to 5 rr.t,re examincd. t)rr'. 1 rs dcli:trrlarir No.-1, I)u,.2 is co lrr,)rn(.r.ol- lather of plainLiff, I)*'.3 is <1c[elrd:rrrt N..1. r)*,..1 is c.r rrrr.rr rclalir..r. and Drv.5 is rkrf.-ndant No.8.

22. The t:ontc,ntion r:l plarntil'l rn thc srrit is llirl h(. is tlte younger brorltcr- ol delcndtrnt N()s.4 to 7 :rrtrl lllC I)a\.ak:rr Redclf is rh(i l.tthcr .f dclc.dtLrits l to 3 zrrrcr irLrsLrand of delendant No.1 . is rhe cidcr. ltrorlrcr of 1>laintiff. ._trrc L)ayakzrr Reddy is thc h-lier o[ clclc.rl:rnr l',krs. I to 3, S.ri riLkerr. I?ccldv, Dr.Karunakar l.lcdciv and pltrintili arc tlrr: sorrs rr rrI dt.lbndar-rt Nos.6 and 7 zrrc ti.rc daugh tcr s ol lillc Ra nga Rcdd\ ,[hcrc is no dispute u.ith reri:trd to r-elarionsltiJt lrctu,t:r.n tltr, rlrr.ri<...:. The dispute is thal thc sr:it scht'rlule properties urcl-(. t t( I)r(,pertics left over by latc Ranga Rcddr. Acr:orcling to tltc 1rl rjrrtifl all the suit schedule propcrties arc t hc joint familv pro[)(.i.l cs lr:ft over by his father l:rtr: Ralrga lleddy w.hich arre to b<: sut :r,ede<l by all the co parccncrs of joint lamil1 :rnd all thes, properties originally stood rn the nrrrrc of ttrr:ir common an(.,sit()r Venkat 15 Reclcll,-grand lather of plaintiff. Thcre is no dispute with regard to Venkat Reddy rvho was the original owner of suit schedule propertjes. The dispute is tirat at the lime ol liling declaration belore tirc Land Ceiling Tribunal, thcy fited declaration stating that the propcrties were orally partitioned and they are in possession o[ the same indepcndently. According to defendant Nos. 1 to 3, the statement \t'as admitted by the Land Reforms Tribuna[, s'lrereas the contcntion ol plaintiif is that it is not aclmitted bv the I-and Rclorms Tribunal, the properties trrr cleleted shos'ing all thc propcrtics in possession of joint famill' 'lhe appellants herein who arc the dcfendants adrnitted that the lands wcrc surrendered t() thc (iovernmcnt rx'hich was subsequentlv allottcil to various beneficiaries under section 38E ol the Tenancv Acr. The defcndants furthcr admitted that thcl'' purchased residential house at Jambagh, Hyderabad, sold the sarnc and the saie proceeds wcrc shared by all the famrll' mcmbers as it was their joint family property and the said house was purchased by selling the jewellery held by their mother i.e., u,ife of Ranga Reddy. When it is admitted that the house at Jambagh was joint family property purchased with the funds allotLed to the joint family nucleus, it cannot be said that the properf-y* was allotted to plaintiff. Defendants also admitted 16 that all thc forrr brol hcrs sold jointlv part of thc.ir join t famrlv Iands to S.S t, Ilirl<.]rcrics ernd sale proceeds ri.erc equa))r. sharcd bt, thcrr. Pr.r. 2 u ho is a commor.r rclatt., r. o[ Lroth t]rc p:rrties dcpr,scrl Lhirt pl:rintiff is dlrll and not ii r irrtelliqenL person ancl :rltr:r Ljte cleath of father of plaintrl. ;rli the firur brothers ent(lrcd into a settlemcnt, \\.rote a docur.rttnL :rnd kr:pt it *.ith one S;rclirsir,:r Rccld'*.ho *..s thc uncle of ,r,i.tiil-. Sonrt, of the dq, Ilrn<i:; arc joinf larnill. propcrties u.cr-c s,)l(i -jointlr, bv all Lhe lour br.thr:rs .f the pltrinlii'f i. the 'eerr 1!154 55, thr: [ather oI plainLri't got re<:ordccl lhe rrames of Dav:rkar- Ilcc]61,u ..r,0 dclendant Nc,s.1- zrn<1 5 in tht: rcvrlluc records it-r -,,s1tt:r:L o[ t]re joi'rt family I:r.ds r.r,ith an unclerstanding th:rt :.ll the fo.r brothers of tlrc ltlaintiff shall have equal shares irr-rl lte Ceposcd that thc pr()pcrt.cs irrc lctint lirrnilv properties.

23. Pu,.3 is tltc coLrsin ol plaintifi ernri his bro ircrs ancl he supported th<: piainriff. Drv. t is dclendanL No_4 zrr 1 he deposed that the propertics rverc alreirrly partitioned and i:ll :rrc having equal shares. IJe reliecl on Ex.B.1 registered sal,, .lec.l dated 13.02.1989 shorving that all the four brothers '1oinrJy sold Ac. 11.34 guntas in Sy.No.143 and 165 of Sikandr,l:rpur village to one P.Ranga Reddy for a sale consideration of F:s.g5,000/_ and as per the rt:citzrls of Ex_B.l the said land solcl ir.,. them was t7 joint family propcrties. Du'1 also lllcd Ex ts 2 which rs the certifted copv of deposition in O S No 23 of I97(r oi lather of D$,s.1 to 3, u'herein hc dcpost:d Lhal suit lands u'cre their ancestral properties inhcritcd by his iather Rarlga Reddy lrom his grandfather Venkat Rccldy' He arlso deposed that I're had three brothers and all zirc tllc joint ou ncrs ol the suit schedule lands having inherited tl-rc samc from his fathcr Ranga Reddl' andthesamc\\'creshr>u'ninthchoklingoftheirmotheraspcr the cleclaration filed beforc lhe l'2rud Relbrms Tribunal and the Land Rcforms Tribtrnal corlsidcrecl all the dcclared lands as their joint lamily lan<ls Davakar Rcddy lurther deposed that even after surrender of surplus lzrnds to thc Land Reforms Tribunal, thcl' have bet-- n in loint pr:ssession o[ all their family situatecl in Sv'No 19 were properties. 'lhe cattle shed :rnd jointty hcld bt' them. i)ayakar Redd,1' also admitted that he is the Manager ol joint lhlnily corlsistir-rg ol four brothers after the "r'cll deathoftheirfatheranclthcirmothcrisalsostayingwiththe joint famity, which shou's thal partiLion is only lrmong tl-re father of Dayakar ReddY and Ranga RcddY'

24. The evidence of late Dayarkar Rcddy in O S No'23 of 1976 clearly shows that there is no oral partition as claimed by defendantNos.lto3andthcpropertieswerejointfamily 18 pr()perties ()f latc Ranga Rcddy. Ex.B.1 also sho,r:; thitt therc is no partition of .;oint famih' properties and thc.. solc, prol)cr Lv jorntly 25- Thc contcntion of appellanls herein is (b:rr rhe admjssion bcfore Lanrl Rr:forms Tribunal is not conc]nsir,,' proof of oral l)artition. .An :rdrnission is not a conclusivc irt-rr,l ol cvidcnr:c irrrd iL is al\va\/s sllbject to explanation and rt is rl\\:t\ s operr to l)re partics to explain uncktr u,h:rt clrcumstan,:r's tltr-:r, rlarle such zrn :rdmission. Evcn thc lancl Ceiling Tril;.r.ral inspitc of such admissi()n, not acceptcd the alleged oral nartition ancl concluded as joint lamily propertics in a singlc luri: ancl allottcd shares as per their entitlement. Though thc aLp x IIar r s herein claimed that there was an oral partition in the r I'ir,- 1c)69 itsclf arcl basing on the oral partition, thc parr.r.lr herve filcd dcclaration be lore thc Lancl Refcrrms Tribur-ral. t:t,j evidcnce o[ father of Dws.1 to 3 in O.S.No.23 of 1976 slrc,rr.s that thc properties are joint family properties. Therclore , tlrc contentiolt o1'appellants herein that there was an oral part tjon that took place in thc yezrr 1969 cannot bc believcd. Furlrtr. thr: allcged oral partition was of the year 1969 according to -).re alrpcllants, u,hereas the larher of plaintilf and defendant Nos. ,j to ;,, Ranga 19 Reddy died in the year 1973 rvhich means at the time of alleged oral partition, thcir f:rther Ranga Rcdd-1' rvas alive, as such, he is also entitled lor a share in the joint family properties, But the evidence shoq,s that no shzrre rvas allotted to Ranga Reddy-. Therefore, the alleged oral partition cannot be believed.

26. Thc cvrdence of Dw.3 shou,s that the lands in S1'.Nos. 165 and 143 were not jointly sold by thc plaintiff, delendant Nos.4 and 5 and D:ryakar Reddy and these lands in Sy.Nos. 165 and 143 were sold under trx.B. I rcgistered sale deed ancl its rccitals clearly shou,s that lands arc sold lointly and thc document falsifies the evidence of Dn'.3. Further the joint family of plaintiff and defendants or,r'ned :rbout Ac.4OO of land during the period of Iatc Rar-rga Reddy, thc fathcr of plaintiff, dcfendants 4 to 7 and grandfather of defendi,rnt Nos,1 to 3. Defe ndant No.4 frled writ petition challenging the ordcr of Government declaring that patta of the lands in Sy.Nos.6/AA /2 and 7 lAA2 along wilh other lands were declared rvrongly as Khariz Khata lands and defendanl No.4 in his evidence clearly stated lhat sincc lands in respect of all these lands werc lransferred in his name, when he was a minor during i954-55 at the trme of Khasra Pahani, he filed writ petition claiming these lands as belonging to him since 20 they are rccorded in his nan-re, but he claimed all llrt:se lirncls as joint familv l) rc ilcrties.

27. TI'rc c,.,id:nce of Drv.4 is also not corrobor-rting ,r'itlr thc conLention ol rlcfendant Nos.1 to 3 to establish oni ,ritrtitir.rn. D$.4 statc(l that there \,,ras no joint lamily rrrr,l llrr:rc u,as parLition betu,een the brothers, br-rt in his cross-('::rrnintrtron, hc dici not givc any particulars abour the partition ar rl hc rrdmirLcd thal surr('|(ler statements were published ir r Irr r rl1:tqr: Exs.B.5 and B.6 are the notices prublished br ttrc Lrrrrrl licforms Tribunal incJicating that lands surrcndered and ir:r t lttt'd b1, thc Tribunal and c:ompensation was also paid for tlrr surrr:ndered lands and it w'ers shared by all thc four brothers ri hich indicates that therc \\ as no partition of thc joint family' pr o rcrt ics The documcnt r-rnclcr Ex.B.1-salc deed and Ex.[].1' L'rrirlct'rcc of Dayakar Re ddy in O.S.No.23 ol 1976 clearlr sho'.r,s thzrL properties rve re joint family properties and [here js rr I) ]rtlriun.

28. The main contention of the appellants is r lrrr rt,hen thc parties admittodly hled declaration before the l-:rnd Reforms Tribunal stating that there was an oral partitron :r n i thr:y arc ir-r possession of (tertain properties after the partitio.t. norv thev cannot claim that these properties are joint familr 1-r,r1;,'rties, as an admissio)r act as an estoppel in view of the jtrd grncrlt of the 2L Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kale & others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation & others3 the parlies once admitted before any Tnbunal, they cannot go back from the said admission. In the present case also all the parties lllcd decl:rration stating that there is an orai partition between the parties, whereas, the subsequent events in this case shou's that the father of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in O.S.No.2 3 ot 1976 dcposcd that it is a joint family properq/ and Ex.B.1 sale deed even after oral partition shows that the propertlr u'as solci jointll, 2n61 ".1. proceeds were partitioned among thc parties. 'lhercfore, the said admission canno[ be considered as an estoppel in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case. As such, there is no illegality in the finding of trial Court rvith regard to nature of property as it is a joint family properq'. POINT NOs.2 AND 3 :

29. A11 the suit schedule propcrtics are admittedly anccstral properties and it is not the claim of any party to the suit that either entirely or any part of the suit schedule properties are self-acquired properties of any of the partics- The contention of defendant Nos.4 and 5 who are the sisters of plaintiff is that in view of amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act 3 1976 (3) SCC 1 19 22 (for short'ActJ in the year 20O5 they are also entrtlcd for equal sherre in the suit properties as per Ganduri Koteshwaramma's case, the Colrrt can modify thc preliminary der:rr:t: or mrrre than one preliminrrry decree to pass the hnal decrce , ri'h Lch incltrcles thc shares of d:Lughter as per amended Act. Irurther, in Vineeta Sharma's case, the provisions of Sectior: ,1 of the Act confer the sLatus of co-parcener on daughter b,lrn before or aftcr amendrnenl in the same manner as son \r irh sarnc righls and liabiliries. Going through the said contentiorr, rhere is no ambiguiS with regard to applicability of amender Ser:1ion 6 ol the Act to thc daughtcrs born prior to the amendnrcnt, rvhcreas in the present case succession opens when lather of thc brothers ani sisters died in the year 1973 itself, on lhal date tlLese daughters are not co-parceners. Therefore, aarcncied provision cann()t be implemented from 1973, as such, they are entitled for share in their father's property as class-l lcgerl heirs.

30. The suit sche duie properties are inherited l;1- latc Ranga Reddy from his father late Venkat Reddy, thus all the four brothers i-e., Dayakar Reddy, Sudhakar Redd.., Karunakar Reddy and Prabhakar Reddy and their father late Flanga Reddy arc entitled to equal shares in the suit schedule, properties. Initially the suit schedule properties are to be divirled into fivc equal shares and each of late Ranga Reddy, late Dayakar Reddy, Sudhakar Reddy, Karunakar Redcll. ancl prabhakar Reddy are entitlcd to 1 / Stl, share in the cntire suir schedulc propcrry .rnd thc 1/ sth share of late Ranga Reddv is to be cqualll, shared betr,r,een defendants 1 to 3, and 11 and defendant Nos.6 and 7 are also entitled to cqual shares along w,ith thcir brothers and the four sons of Ranga Reddy and two daughters are entitled to share his l/5t' interest in the suit schedule properties as Devakamma is no more. Thus, Davakar Redci_r,, dcfendants 4 to 7 and the plaintiff are entitled to each 1 / 6th share in tire 1 / sth share of late Ranga Reddy. Therefore, rhere is no illegzriiry in the shares allotted by the trial Court. In the cross objcctions frled by respondents 1to 5 it is stated that though thel mentioned about Sy.Nos.l9, 23, 2a2, 3Oa, 31 1 and 309, the trial Court has not decreed the suit r,r,ith reg:rrd to the above I survey numbcrs and the same should have bccn included in al1 the schedules as well as in the judgment and decree as those properties are also ancestral and joint lamily properties. Only Sy.Nos. 19 and 23 are mentioned in the plaint schedule properties and there is no evidence or no mention about Sy.Nos.282, 3O8, 311 and 309 either by the plaintiff or the defendants. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to include the 24 propertles in Sy.Nos.19 and 23 to an extent of 1.c.,1.34 guntas and Ac. i.24 guntas. These cross -obj ections are c:orrsiclerecl io lhc extent cf the above said properties as for iltrt 61|1r:5 s1111,61. numbers the rc is no pleading or there is no er-iclc.tce. As such the claim to the extent ol Sy.Nos.282, 3O8, 3I 1 ancl 3O9 is dLsmissed. PoinL Nos.2 and 3 are answered accor<iirrglr,. 3l. IN THD IiESULT, the Appeal Suit is dismissed and rhe cross objectrons is partly allou,ed to the extent of S.,..Ncs. 19 and

23. There sh:rll be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any sha ll stand closed To, //TRUE COPYII SiCI/- K.SRINIVASA RAO JO!NT REGISTR,qR G SECTION OFFICER

1. The District Judge, Ivledak at Sangareddy. 2 One CC to SRt. M SRTKANTH REDDY Advocate [OptJC] 3. One CC to SRt. SRTNIVAS POLAVARAPU Advocate [(]PUCI 4. One CC to SRI Thota Gopinath, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Cne CC to SRt Umesh Singh, Advocate IOPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Venkata Mayur , Advocate (OpUC) 7. One CC to M/S PROGRESSTVE LAW F|RM (OPUC) 8. Two CD Copies ASR/PSt- \ HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 tJ IA o I Iil: ?[6 z 6J i F:, ,,:,1 JUDGMENT CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR).No.15356 OF 2005 IN/AND AS.No.2784 of 2004 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CROSS OBJECT]ONS AND DiSiviiSSiNG TiiE APPEAL SUIT \ \t\ &b IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA .A.T HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.15356 OF 2005 IN/AND APPEAL SUI T NO: 2784 OF 2004 CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.'|5356 OF 2005: Cross objections filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the part of the Decree and Judgment passed in o.s No.22 of 2002, dated 22.03 2004 on the filed of the Court of the Diskict Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

1. D. PRABHAKAR REDDY, S/o Ranga Reddy Agriculture R/o Sikindlalapur \./il !2gs, $l ir.,21pet [r.4and al. Iled al'. D!st!'ict.

2. D. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o Ranga Reddy Agricult!re R/o Sikindlalapur Village - Shivampet Mandal, Medak District. (Died per LRs. Rangareddy 12 lo 14) 3. DR. Karunakar Reddy, S/o Ranga Reddy R/o Padmaraonagar, Hyderabad (Died per LRs. - RR I & 10, 11)

4. Narasamma, D/o Ranga Reddy R/o Sikindlapur Village, Shivampet tvlandal, It4edak Dist

5. D- Aruna, Wo S. Karunakar Reddy R/o Jalalpur Village, Bommala Ramavaram Mandal, Nalgonda District.

6. Vimala Donthireddy, Wo. Late D-Karunakar Reddy, Aged about 74 Ye-11s^^- Occ. Retired Doctor, R/o. 6-1-121, Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad - 50UU25'

7. Smt. Shilpa Donthireddy, Wo. Dr. G. Harish. Aged about 4-B-ye-ars, Occ' Doctor, Ri/o. 6-1-121 , Phdnraraonagar, Secunderabad - 500025 B. Dr.Kavitha Donthireddy, D/o. Late D.Karunakar Reddy. Wo. Ashish Ganqasani, Age 50 ye'ars, R/o. 6-1-121, Padma Rao Nagar, Himmaytnagar, Secunderabad, Hyderabad - 500025 . (cross obiectors Nos.6 to B are brought on record as LRs of deceased cross boieitoi lio.a as per Curt Order dated 14.02.2025' vide l.A.No.2 of 2024 & 1..A.:No.1 of 2A25 iir.4S.No.2784 of 2AA4.)

9. Smt.D.Bharathi Reddy, Wo. Late D.sudhakar Reddy, Aged 75 years, Occ' Household 1 1. D.sreedhar Recldy, S/o. Late D.sudhakar Reddy, Agecl zrbout 50 years, Occ Buslness RR-12 to 14 are R.lo.l-l Nlo.8-2 293!82/t-, Plol l"lo.4018 RoaC \1o.12. Ir,4 LA Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. (Cross Objector Nos. 9 to 11 are brought on record as l-Fl's of deceased Cross Obj6ctor lrlo.2 as per Court Order dated 06.03.2()25, v de LA.No 4 of 2025 in X-OBJ(SR).No 15356/2005 in A.S No 2784 of 1'C04) C ross Objectors AND 1 D. AMARENDER REDDY, S/o Dayakar Reddy R/o :-lat No.2, Srisainath Apartments, Srinivasanagar, Namalagundu, Secunderz bad

2. D. Surender Reddy, S/o Dayakar Reddy R/o Sikindlapur Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District. (Died per LRs. - RR - 8 to 10) l Smt D. Sujatha, Dlo Dayakar Recidy Wo Shivaram R{xidy R/o Ftat No 2 Srr sainatha Apts, Srinivasanagar, Namalagundu, Secundt:rrabad.

4. Smt Prameela Wio Dayakar Reddy R/o Sikindlapu' Village Shivanrpet Mandal, Mledak District.

5. Yenugu Pedda Chandraiah S/o Narasiah, aged about ii7 years; 6. Yenugu Chinna Chandraiah S/o Pentaiah, aged about 54 years; /. Yenugu Srrn'vas S/o Yenugu Karre Ramulu, aged aboltt 27 yearc'. (Respondenl: Nos.5 to 7 are R/o Sikindlapur Villaa3r-., Shivampet Mandal, Medak District)

8. D.Aruna, Wo. Late Surender Reddy, Aged about 37'yerars, Occ. Houser.vife, R/o. Sikindlpur Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak Dist-i<:t.

9. jaysimha Recidy, Slo. Late Surencier Reooy, Hgeo ailout i 5 years, fuiinor Represented by his mother and natural guardian, Stnt. D.Aruna Wo. Late Surender Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Hou:;erwife, R/o. Sikidlapur Village, Shivampet Manal, Medak District. l0.Bharath Simha Reddy, Sio. Late Surender Reddy, Aged about 13 years, Minor Represented by his mother and natural guardian, Smt. D.Aruna Wo Late Surender Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Hous;ewife, R/o. Sikidlapur \/ilt4^^ Qhir,-'-^a+ v'llogc.U||'volil|JELivlq|lol' nI^naL F\iarri^+ tI^^al (Respondent Nos.B to 10 are brought on record ers LRs of deceased Respondent No.2 as per Court Order dated 20.06.2023 vrde l.A.No.2 of 2022 in AS No.27B4 of 2004.) Respond ents/Respondents Cross objections filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C , aggrieved by the part of the Decree and .ludgment passed in O.S.No.22 of 2002, da".ed 22.03.2004 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. APPEAL S UIT NO: 2784OF 2004: Between: 1 D. AMARENDER REDDY, S/o Dayakar Reddy R/o FIat No 2, Srisainath Apartments, Srinivasanagar, Namalagundu, Secunderabad

2. D. Surender Reddy, S/o Dayakar Reddy Rio Sikindlapur Village, Shivampet tVIandat, Medak District. (Died per LRs. - Appellant Nos 5 to 7)

3. Smt D. Sujatha, Dlo Dayakar Reddy Wo Shivaram Reddy R/o Flat No.2, Sri sainatha Apts, Srinivasanagar, Namalagundu, Secunderabad. 4 Smt Prameela, Wo Dayakar Reddy R/o Sikindlapur Village, Shivampet I\/andal, Ivledak District. (Died per LRs Appellants 1 to 3) (Appellants 1 to 3 are recorded as LRs of the deceased 4th Appellant as per C.O dt 23 11 2017 made in ASI\/P No 22.354t17 dt-24 11 2017)

5. D.Aruna, Wo. Late Surender Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Sikindlpur Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District.

6. Jaysimha Reddy, S/o. Late Surender Reddy, Aged about 15 years, IVlinor Represented by his mother and natural guardian, Smt. D.Aruna Wo. Late Suiender Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Sikidlapur Villaqe, Shivampet lt/lanal, Medak District. 7 Bharath Simha Reddy, S/o. Late Surender Reddy, Aged about 13 years, l/inor Represented by his mother and natural guardian, Smt D.Aruna Wo. Late Surender Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o Sikidlapur Village, Shivampet Manal, Medak District. Appellant Nos.S to 7 are brought on record as LRs of deceased- Appellant tltb.Z as per Court Order dated 20.06.2023 vide l.A.No.2 of 2022 in AS.No.2784 of 2004. (Amendment carried out Appellant Nos. 5 to 7 are as per C.O.dt.20.061.2023) AND APPELLANTS/Defendants 1 to 3 & 1'l '1 . D. PRABHAKAR REDDY, S/o Ranga Reddy Agriculture R/o Sikindlalapur Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District.

2. D. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o Ranga Reddy Agriculture R/o Sikindlalapur Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District. (Died per LRs. Rangareddy 12to 14) 3. DR. Karunakar Reddy, S/o Ranga Reddy R/o Padmaraonagar, Hyderabad (Died per LRs. - RR I & 10, 11)

4. Narasamma, D/o Ranga Reddy R/o Sikindlapur Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak Dist

5. D. Aruna, Wo S. Karunakar Reddy R/o Jalalpur Village, Bommala Rarnavaram Mandal, Nalgonda Diskict.

6. Y.Pedda Chandraiah, S/o Narsaiah R/o Jalalpur Village, Bommaia Ramar.raram ltlanda!, Nalgonda District.

7. Y Chinna Chandraiah, S/o Pentaiah R/o Sikindlapur Village, Shivampet Ir4a nd al, Itledak Dist L Y. Srinivas, S/o Y. Karre Ramulu R/o Sikindlapur Villag:, Shivampet Mandal, l\/edak Dist

9. Vimala D_onthrreddy, Wo. Late D.karunakar Reddy, Agr:cl about 74 years, Occ. Retired Doctor, R/o. 6-1-121, Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad-- 500025

10. Smt Shilpa Donthrreddy W/o Dr. G. Harish, Aged aborl 48 years, Occ Doctor, R/o. 6-1 121 , Padr.naraonaga r, Secunderabad - :i00025. 1 1. Dr Kavitha Donthireddy D/o. Late D. Karunakar.Reddy. V//o Ashish Gangasani, Age 50 years, Rlo. 6-1-121, Padma Rao Nagar, Himmaytnagar, Secunderabad, l-iyderabad - 500025. (Respondent Nos.9 to 1'1 are brought on record as L.Fls of deceased Respondent No.3 as per Curt Order dated 14.02.20'2l;, vide l A.No.2 of 2024 & l.A. Nl,: 1 of 2025 jn A.S Nlo.2784 of 2004 )

12. Smt.D Bharathi Reddy Wo. Late D.sudhakar Reddy, Lged 75 years, Occ Household

13. D.Sugandhin', D/o Household Late D Sudhakar Reddy, Aged aboLrt 56 years, Occ

14.D Sreedharlq9iV S1o Lqle D SudhakarReddy, Aged about50 years, Occ Business RR,12 to'14 are R/o. H.lr!o.8-2-293lg2lt-,Plat No.40/8, Road 1,1o.12, It/LA Colony, Ba rjara Hills, Hyderabad. (Respondent Nos. 12 Io 14 are brought on record as LFs of deceased Respondent No 2 as per Court Order dated 06.03.2025 uide l.A.No.4 of 2O2S in AS.No.2784 of 2004) RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., aggrieved b'; the Judgment and Decree dated 22.03 2oo4 in o.S.No. 2zlz002 on the file of the i)istr ct Judge, lvledak at Sanga Reddy. oRDER: 'l'hcsc'Cr.ss otlections and Appeal Suit are comin;1 on fbr heari,g ad upon perusing thc grounds ofappeal. the Judgment and Decree ofthe Lou.er courl and the matcflal pcpcrs in lhe Pctition l,ril upon hcaiing the arg-,inients of sri Il. |Jaienrler Rcddl', sr. Counsel for Sri NI. Srikanth Redd;' for cross objectors and for appellants in t re Appeal Suit and of Sri Srinivas Polavarapu lbr Respondent r-os.I to 3, 9, 10, Sri rhota (icpinath fbr I{cspondent Nos.12, 13 & 14, Sri Ve,hata Ma.vur lor Respondent Nos .4, S & ll, S.i Umesh Singli loL Respondent No.2 & 8 and Sri P. Sudhakar for M/s progressive Law I,ir.m for.rhc respondcnts in the Appeal Suit. That this Court doth Order and Dccree as follows: That thc Cross Objections is be and hereby Partly atto.*:d and Appeal Suit is dismissed. That the Clross Objections is partly allowed to the extenr. of Sr..Nos. 1 9 and 23_ 2

3. Save as aforesaid, remaining part of the decree ofthe trial court is confirmed :- ^ll ^+L^..^-^^^+..

4. Thar there shall be no order as to cosLs. It .7eDe .oaY // To 1 . 'l'he District .ludge, Medak, at Sangareddy 2- Tu,o CID Copies. SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR 6 SecTDN orncER I I \ i HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 DECREE CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR).No.15356 CrF 2005 IN/AND AS.No.2784 of 2004 PARTLY ALLOIVING THE CROSS OBJECTIONS AND I)ISMISSlNG THE APPEAL SUIT ttt {