The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the AppellantsNos. 1 to 6 : SRl. M DAMODAF ttEDDy Counsel for the Appellant No.7: SRt K LAKSHMI MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondents : SRI M V SURESH The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT ., ,',/ THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SU.IANA APPEAL SUIT No.1O59 of 2OL6 JUDGMENT: Challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2016 passed in O.S.No.216 of 2Ol2 b-y the learned XII Additional District Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, the present Appeal Suit is filed.

2. The brief fac[s of thc case are that the plaintifl claimed that she and defendant No.I were joint owners of agricultural Iands measuring a total of Ac- 1 1.00 guntas in Murthujaguda Village, Ranga Reddy Dislrict, which originally belonged to their mother, late Bomma F-t igarnma. She alleged that Bagamma had acquired part of thc land from her maternal uncle and purchased the rest with hcr eamings, making it her absolute self-acquired property, Aiier the death of Bagamma intestate, the plaintiff and defendant No.1, as her only surviving legal heirs, were entitled to equal shares. However, defendant No.l got the property mulated solely in his name and sold Ac.2.OO guntas to riefe;rdant No.2, who in turn sold it to defendant No.3. The plairrtiff contended that no partition 2 sKs,J ?i.Si.tlo- l()59 of 2016 had takcn place, and the sale transactions u':re irrvalid as against her half share. She sought partition ci the properh, into t$() crlual sh:rres and separate possession ol lier share.

3. On the othcr hand, defendant No.1 ernd his lcgal heirs i.e., defendernt Nos.S, 6, and 10 to 13 denied thc clarrn of the plaintiff, contending that the proper[ was n(: Basamma's absolutc properly but the.joint family propert5. oi clcfendan{ No. 1 anrl his father, Venkaiah. They claimed tlr:rr Il.rgamma had executed a Will dated 23.03.1983 in favour oi rlr:fendant No. I and his sons, making them absolute o,\'ncrs. They argred that the plaintiff, married before the Hinc u Suc'cession Act amcndments. had no share and that hcr suit u,as barred purchasers for value, having bought the land :rf:er verifving revenuc rer:ords and developing it. They allegeC t hc suit rvas collusive betu'een the plaintiff and first defend::rtr to cleprive them of their land,

4. Basing on lhe above pleadings, the trial r}rurt framed eight issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.c.. PW. I was examined zrncl Ex.Al to A9 are marked. DWs 1 ancl 2 are + ,l 3 SI(S,J A.S.!{o.1059 of 20l6 examined arld Exs.Bl to E}3 were marked on behalf of the defendants

5. After examining the evidence, the trial Court, uide order dated 21.06.20 16, decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff proved the suit property was the absolutc property of late Bagamma through consistent oral evidence and documentary proof (Exs.A 1 to A6), and the defendants failed to establish that it was joint famill' property. The alleged Will (Ex.Bl) was found to be fabricated, with contradictions in the defendants' pleadings, absence of examina.tion of attesting witnesses, and suspicious circumstances such as inclusion of a beneficiary not yet born at the time of its purpor led exccution. The trial Court concluded that Bagqruir-ra died intestate, and the plaintiff and defendant No.1 succeeded equally to the property. The sale of Ac-2-00 guntas by defendant No. 1 to defendant No.2, and subsequently to defendant Nos.3 and 4, did not affect the right of the plaintiff, though defendant Nos.3 and 4 could work out equities in the share of defendant No. 1. Further, the trial Court granted the plairrtiff half share in the property with costs, and allotting the other half to the legal heirs of defendant No. 1. Aggrieved by the said judgment, 4 SKS,J A.S.l{o.1O59 of 2016 ,i'l appellants,/defendant Nos.5,6 and 1O to 13 liled the prescrlt appeal suit

6. Heard Sri M. Damodar Reddy, learn:d counsel appearing on beh:rlf o[ the appellants as weli as Sri M.V. Suresh, lcarned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondenl s-

7. Lezrrncci counsel for the appellants subm t'-ed that the ..ludgment .rnd decree under appeal were i[[e5 a[, unlau'ful, contrary to lau', and against the facts on record zLr-rd that the trial Court ought to have seen that the suit schedule property originalll belonged to the ancestors of late Bornrnrr Vittalaiall, but thc patle stood in the name of Bomma Fagamrna, his mother ancl the molher of respondent No. l. Hc furthc'r submittecl that raking advantage of this, rescondr:nt No 1 claimcd thzrt the property belonged to her mother zrnd that she rvas entitle d to half share, with the remainin6l I Lalf belonging to he r brother. However, respondent No. 1, .vl-ro was the plaintiff in O.S.No.216 of 2Ol2 failed to producc any proof to establish that her mother was the sole owner of the property. Despite this, the triai Court erroneously granted a preliminary n' / /i I I I I I j I i i i I I ! I I I I j 5 SKS,J A.S. o.1059 of 2016 decree in her favour declaring lhat she had a 50%o share in the property. B. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that since the patta stood in the name of Bagamma, she had executed a Will dated 23.03.1983 bequeathing the suit property to her son Vittalaiah and his grandchildren and that the appellants had adduced proper evidence to prove Ex.Bl Will, but the trial Court wrongly disbelieved it and decreed the suit. He further submitted that much before the filing of the partition suit, defendant No. 1 'Vittalaiah and his sons had sotd Ac.2-0O guntas of land to respondent No.2 under a registered sale deed dated 10.10.2OO2, and therefore the said extent ought to have been excluclcd from thc partition-

9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that sulfrcient evidence had been produced to prove the Will and to show that the property, though standing in the name of Bagamma, was the ancestral proper[y of late Vittalaiah' However, without proper appreciation of evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit and that respondent No.1 was never in possession or enjoyment of any part of the suit property and, 6 sKs,J F.S.No.1059 of2016 therefore, sht: oughl to have valued the suit rrnder Section 3a(1) of thc A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation l\ct ernd paid lhc proper Court fee under Section 34(2). [n r;pite o[ this delect, the trial t:ourt erroncously decreed thc r;uit q'ithout proper valuation and payment of court fee. [n :;trpporL of his submissions, hc rclied upon the judgment of this C-.ourt in Godi Jayarami Reddy and anothei v. Siddamurthy Jayarami Reddy (since dted) by LRs and othersr, and the judgment cl thc Hon'blc Supreme Court in Des Raj and Others v. Bhagat Ram (Dead) by LRs ar.d Others 2 . 'l'herefore, he pra,ved the Court to set aside th< judgment of I hr: trial Cour, bl, allou.ing irr A ppeal Suit. i 0. On the othcr hand, thc lezrrned counsel [or' -espondents submitted that thc property stood in the r ame of [ate Ilagamma, wh ich u'as evidcnt from the pahani cntries shorving lrcr name. Thcrefore , the plaintitf and defendant No. l, being her children, .*.erc entitled to equal shares in the 1>ropertlr. He further submittcd that Ex.B1 Will was a fabricatt:cl ard forged clocument anrl that the trial Court had rightly rli,;believed it. [{e argued that the appellants had failed to produce any 'zoo+ (t) aro zrz (Dg) ' 1zooz1 s scc oar , 1 SKS,J A.S.Ito.1059 of 2016 credible evidence to prove their claim that the property was ancestral in nature. He also submiLtcd that the sale o[ Ac.2 O0 gunlas to defendant No.2 would not affect the la'*,ful share of the plaintiff. Therefore, there was no illegality or perversit5r in the judgment of the triai Court, and the trial Court had right[1, passed the impugned judgment. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal suit. I 1. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal Whether late Bagamma was the absolute owner of the suit schedule properly, and if so, whether the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are eiriitled lo equal shares therein? n Whether Ex.B 1 Will dced dated 23.03.1983 is true, valid, and binding on the plaintifP tll. Whether the suit schedule property is the absolute property of iate Bagamma or the ancestral/joint family property of late Vittalaiah and his father? IV Whether defendants No.2 to 4 are bona fide purchasers o[ any portion of the suit schedule property for valuable consideration, and if so, to what effect? 8 SKS,J .r,.S;.No.1O59 of 2016 Whe ther the plaintiff is entitled to tzrrtition and sepa ra1.e possession of her share in the suit schedulc propert_v? Whether lhe judgmcnt and decree of rlLr: trial corLrt su[[r r frr-r m unr illegality, pcrvcrsiry, or clror uerrranting inter lerence bv this Court? Point Nos.i to v:

12. In thc tight of the subrnissions made try both the Ie:rrne d co -rnsel and upon pcrus:rl of the recorct, t.he principal que stion u..rs u,heLhcr the suit schedule prop rrty belonged absolutell,' to late Bagamma or formed l]i1rt of some ances tral /J oirLt famil_v estate. It is the specific contention o[ the appcllants t[]at the propcrtv u,as ancestral:rnd had been put in the rarne of Bagamma by her husband. Further, it was not disputed that Sy.Nos.32 and 33 had been acquired by Bagamma from her maternal uncle, and the plaintiff produced contemporaneous pahani entries (Exs.Al :c A6) and consistent oral evidence estabiishing that late E agamma had been the owner and possessor of the lands in clispute. The delendants had not led persuasive, authenticar,ed revenue I sKst,J A.S.No.1059 of 20l6 records or reliable oral testimony to contradict that I documentary and oral proof

13. With respect to Ex.Bl, i.e., the Will dated 23.03.1983 relied upon by the appellants, lhe trial Court found the proof to be wholly insufhcient. The appellants failed to produce the original Will or examine any competent attesting witness. Material contradictions appeared in the pleadings artd evidcncc regarding thc benehciaries and the circumstances of execution. Notably, the alleged Will was not refcrred to in the pleadings in the earlier partition suit, O.S. No.I7 of 2OO7, instituted by the same parties, which created further suspicion about its genuineness. Further, the Will had to be proved in accordance with Sectron 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. No attestor was examined. The specifrc contention of the appellants was that the attestoi's had already died, however, they also failed to call the sons of the scribe, who, according to their own evidence, could have spoken to the scribe's handwriting, thereby leaving the critical aspects of execution unproved. Moreover, the Will was executed in 1983, whereas D I I was born in 1985. Executing a Will in favour of a person not yet born raises serious doubt about the validity of the Will. 10 SKS,J A.S No.1059 of 2016 Hence, thc trial Court rightly held that Ex.B I \\'rr:; not proved and could nol bc :rccepted as a valid testamenta 1 instrument bir-rding on t lrr: plaintiff.

14. Furthcr, the contention tl-rat Ac.2 O0 gunlas (S5,.No.35) sold by dc[e ndant No- I to respondent No.2 and later to defendants No.3 and 4 ought to have been e rr;luded from partition. It was lound that thc sale deeds q,crc exe<:uted by defendant No I claiming title, but Lhe existence cf those sale deeds did not negate the substantive claim of thr' plaintiff to a half share i[ latt: Bagamma was the absolute c,wner. The appellants had not cstablished that the sa.[e ext nguished the plaintiffs pr()l)rictarv righ| at best it gave purchrrs;ers such as defendants N,r.3 ancl 4 rerncdics against the r,'-ndor (or the vendor's hcirs) ir-r respect of the vendor's shale. l'he trial Court therefore correctly held that the purchast:rs' equities could be rvorked out in the decree but that .hLe plaintiffs entitlement to partition could not be defeated on lhe mere basis of the szrle when the foundational title (to Bagamma) and the invalidity of the will remained unestablished. ;s 11 SKS,J A.S.No.lO59 of 2()16

15. This Court also dealt with the objection re lating to vaiuation and court fee. The evidence showed that the plaintiff had not been excludcd from enjoyment of the property; on the contrary shc had been receiving her share of income and was in joint enjoymcnt wilh her brother. On that basis the Court found no merit in the contention that the suit had been undervalued or that the trial court's decree suffered for want of proper suit valuation or court fee in a manner fatal to thc claim. In any event, the appellants had not shown prejudice or a Iegal bar which ivculd warrant setting aside the decree merely on this ground.

16. As seen from the record, the documentary evidence (Exs.A1 to A9), the oral testirnory of PW. 1 and the defendants' evidence (including DW.l and DW.2), this Court is of the opinion that the appellants hac fa.iled to prove their case that the property was ancestral in the sense alleged or that Ex.Bl r4ras a genuine will. The trial Court had therefore rightly held that late Bagamma was the absolute owner, and that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 succeeded to the estate as equal heirs. \ \ \ 12 SKS,J A.S. o 1059 of 2016 Point No . vr: 17 . In vicu' of the above dis<:ussion in point N tr; I to v. there is no illegality i, thc judgment of the trial c,rrr.r . r.he trial court disr:ussed all the issucs and it is a .\.,-rrr r!-asoned judgment and there are no grounds to intrrr f cre in the judgment.

18. In vit w thereof, this Appr:sl Suit is dismissr:cl r.on firming I i i I t , I a the judgment and O.S.No.216 of 2012 decree dzrtcd 2l.06.2OL(: perssed by thc Ic,.rrnecl XII Judge, Vikzirabad, Ranga Redrjv Districr order as to oosts Therc r;ha l[ bc no Addit i rrrerl I) is trict Miscellaneous applicatic,ns, it. any pending. s;hall stand closed Note: This order has not been dispatched to the M/S K.Laxmi Manohar, Advocate due to the not put up the Vakalath in E'B and the said advocate submitted a letter vide dl:24t1012025 to issue copy of the order and vakalath has been put up in the E.B. after receipt of the said letter. This order the earlier Order disPatched on 1511012025. /ITRUE COPY// IJD/- N.SRIHARI DEPU-Y REGISTRAR I;d/- N. SRIHARI DEPr.nY REGISTRAR / e>- SI.CTIY( OFFTCER To, '1. The Xtl Additional District Judge. Vikarabad. 2 One CC lo SRl. M DAMODAR REDDY Advocate [oPUUi 5. One CC to SRl. M V SURESH Advocate {OPUCI 4. One CC to Sri K Lakshmi Manohar, Advocate (OPUC) 5. Two CD Copies ASR./PSL h. HM : i:.. (- r , ",'. ",^ '.).. (', f, ;i C-r I I t .z 16 , H 1 i.iJl: 1 N l,0 206 I b 1-'.r:. ta:'.\:. T * I .( ) /,' l/; ii. '.r ii \/, \. HIGH COURT DATED:1910812025 A,\qmeo.JUDGMENT AS.No.1059 of 2016 DISMISSING THE APPEAL ,s+ V+- '"-4.5 -rdoo IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL S UIT NO: 10 59 0F 2016 Between: 'l . Bomma Vittalaiah (died per LRs.)' - 2.BommaVenkatesh,S/o'LateB.Vittalaiah,,.a.gedabout50years,occ - ;s;i;;iir,; nb. rtrrit..irs;o;;lll,s; N'roinauad (M)' Ranga Reddv District 3. Bomma Satyanarayana, S/o. Late B Vittalaiah.'- aqed about 37 years' Occ ' &;i;rli,Ahro. rraJrtuig;i uiii'gl, Moinioad (M)'Ranga Reddv District 4. Smt. B. Kistamma, Wo. Late B' Vittalaiah'..aged about 65 fears' Occ Moinabad (Mi, Ranga Reddy District 5. B. Veeraswamy, S/o. Late B. Viftalaiah, aged about 92J."?tt, Occ Agriculture' " nlo. [ urtJ.gucii villag;, Moinabad (M), R-anga Reddy District 6. Smt. Manjula, Wo. Krishna, aged about-40 years' Occ Household' R/o H No' " a'-)-s6. kh,r'andir, Ralendran6gar (M)' Ranga Reddy District' 7. Smt. K. Sandhya' Wo, Sudhakar, aSqd q!or{.3.!.years' Occ Household R/o' ' Household. nto rVrurtuzg"uO, Cn"nrgo.uta (Vj' euour (M), Ranga Reddy District' "in-rg", ...APPELLANTS/Defendants 5' 6 10 to 13 AND l,MeruquVeeramma,Wo.Buchanna,agedaboutToyearS,occHousehold, ' il; "Xil;itiiiii i,,rrisl, nii".dranasai 1M;' Ransa Reddv District 2. Smt. Aruna Devi, Wo. Amarchand Devda, aged about.46 years'. Occ ' ilJ.irl*ii", nrc 'n r.ro. s-s-r67 Flat No 40i, Sri Lakshmi Residency' Narayanguda, HYderabad. 3- Nasir Ahemd Khan (died per LRs)' Who are respondents 5 to 7 - 4.HaiiraKhan,W/o.NasirAhmedKhan,agedabout.T0years,OccBusiness, 'b-i-oob)ia, criirt kt'rn ioionv, Roao No' 't0' Banjara Hills' HU,l:'t'i; Hyderabad. aged-about 53 years' Occ Aman Ahmed Khan, S/o. Late Nasir Ahmed Khan il;:#";:ffi i']'rb s-z 608ril, C"iiiixn'n coloiv' Road No 10' Baniara Hills, Hyderabad. Itils. Sana Sibqhat, D/o. Late Nasir Ahmed Khan, aged about 50 years' Occ ii;;#fi":iii;:-H.lJ. a--2--6b8rc+, cinar Khan'c6lonv' Road No 10' Ban.iara Hills, HYderabad- 5 6 '- 'lF 7 Ms. Asma Qadeer, Dio. Late Nasir Ahmed Khan, aged about 50 years, Occ Housewife, Rio. ll. No. 8-2-608/34, Gaffar Khan Colony, rload l'1o 10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 8 Maguluri Sarat Chandra Srikanth, S/o. M. Venkata Narayitra, Aged about 44 yrs- Occ. Business, R/o. H-No.8-2-6741P.1313, Banjara Hils Road No.12, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. (Respondents 2lo 7 are not necessary parties) (Respondent No.8 is impleaded as per C.O., dt.29.09.202:) rn l.A.No.1/2021) Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree dated 21-06-2016 in O S. No. 2161201.2 on the file of Xll Additional District Judge, Vikarabad. RESPONDE,NTS/PLAINTIFFS ORDER. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the rraterial papers rn the Petition and upon hearing the arguinents of Sri M. Damodar Fleddy, Advocate for the appellants, Sri K. Lakshmi Manohar, Advocate for appellant Nlo.7 and of Sri M.V. Suresh, Advocae for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

2. That thls appeal is be and hereby dismissed confirming th,: judgment and decreedt.21.06.2016 passed in O.S No.216 of 2012by he XllAddl. Diskict Judge, Vikarabad. That there shall be no order as to costs. Note: This decree has not been dispatched to the M/S K.Laxmi Manohar, Advocate due to the not put up the Vakalath in E.B. and the said advocate submitted a letter vide dt:2411012025 to issue copy of the decree and Vakalath has been put up in the E.B. after receipt of the said letter. This order substitutes the earlier Order dispatched on 1511012025. //TRUE COPY// To '1. The Xll Additional District Judge, Vikarabad 2. Two CD Copies \k Sd/. N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR Sd/-N.SRIHARI ]:PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION-OFFICER v-_.. \ HIGH COURT DATED:19/08/2025 ANTNDEO DECREE AS.No.1059 of 2016 DISMISSING TITB APPEAL r"d?/\ \*flt'