Perugu Cheralu, S/o Mallaiah C/o v. Lachamma, Occ

Counset for the Appellants: SRI' T' P' ACHARYA counsel forthe Respondent Nos. Zto 11 : SRI P. KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the R.espondent No. 12 : SMT' P' SAR'ADA The Gourt delivered the following Judgment : IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELINGAITA m THE HOITOURABLE SMT. JI'STICT K. SUJANA APPEAL SIIIT lfo.386 OF 2(X)3 fi .12.20/25 Between : Koorapati Shankar Koorapati Pentaiah & 14 others And Appellant Respondents [-rTirrdlTElfl This appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree dated 22.O4;2OO2 passed in O.S.No.9O of lgg4 on the frle of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. The plaintiff filed the suit for granting preliminary decree declaring that he is entitled to 1/5d, share in the suit schedule properties and for {inal d.ecree for partition of his 1/5tr' share. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 2

2. Plaintiff, along with defendant Nos.l, 2 to 4, are the children of one K. Narsaiah, w'hile D5 is his wife, defendant No.lO and defendant No.ll are the wife and son of defendeurt No.1, respectivety. Defendant Nos.6 to 9 were added as third parties due to their involvement in propert5r transactions. The plaintiff alteged that he, defendant Nos.l to 5, and their father were co-parceners in a Joint Hindu Family, and that K. Narsaiah died intestate on 07.11.1992, leaving behind 'A, B; and C' schedule properties, which were acquired from joint family. f,unds. During his lifetime, K. Narsaiah worked at AjamJatri Mills, took voluntary retirement, and later engaged in kirana and firewood businesses with the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Defendant No.4 is the sister and she was married and that she was a proforma party to the suit. After closure of the business,, Narsaiah was eking his livelihood by doing cement business untit his death. Alt the schedule properties were acquked from and out of the joint family funds. The plaintiff claimed that defendant No.1 rnis-managed joint family properties and acquired assets in the names of defendant Nos.10 and 11 using joint family funds. A legal notice was issued bJ, th. plaintiff on 18-07.1989 seeking partition, but d.efendant No.l denied the rights of plaintiff. Thereafter the \ \ 3 matter was referred to elders of Padmashali Sapg41n, they intervened and advised partition, but defendant No.1 refused, to comply. In those panchayats, defendant No.l admitted the ownership of joint family in schedule A & B items apart from other properties but evaded partition of A, B ard C schedule properties. The plaintiff further alleged that defendant No.l

9. As such, they were also added as parties to tl,..e suit. '' roperties to defendant Nos.6 to .:

3. Defendant Nos.l to 5, defendant No,8, 1O appeared through their counsel, while defendant Nos.6 and 7 remained ex parte, and suit against defendant Nos.9 and 11 was dismissed for defautt. Defendant Nos.l to 5 and 10 filed written statement. In their written statements, defendanti ttost to 5 and 10 contended that K. Narsaiah had separated. the plaintiff ,: and defendant No.l in t984, and that the 1[.' 'schedule properties were the self-acquired properties of K.Narsaiatr. They claimed that plaintiff and defendant No.l were doing separate businesses and defendant No.l acquired plots independently after 1984. They also contended that in the legal notice issr:ed on 18.O7.lggg, to the defendant No.1 and K.Narsaiatr, there is no mention of ltem Nos.2 to 4 of B' schedule properties and in 4 the repl5r notice, K.Narsaiah, categorically stated t]lat the immovabl.e properties are his self-acquired properties and that plaintiff rmd defendant No.1 have no share in them. On

21.06.19913, the plaintiff again issued legal notice to defendant No.l for u,hich he gave reply. They further contended that after t]:e death of Narsaiah, the caste elders held panchayat and as per their riecision partition took place and accordingly plaintiff has showrr the property in A' schedule. Not satislied with t]le said partition, plaintiff raised disputes as such, defendant No.S made finat settlement through an agreement of partition and as per tire v:rluation, Rs.2O,OOO/- was allotted to the share of defendant No.S, Rs.Sooo/- to defendant No.4 under agreement dated 13.'03. L994 and the difference of share varue of Rs.11,311/- was paid by defendant No.l to ptaintiff on

02.04.1994 under receipt attested by notary. With regard to B, schedule properties they stated that item No.l (a) was allotted to defendant llo.8 and item No.1(b) was allotted to defendant No.9 and item No.2 of Tt' schedule is not the property of joint family and item No.3 and 4 of Ti'schedule are purchased by defendant No.lO with her Sthridhan and sold the same to one V.Kedari, who inturn sold the same to third party. \ \ il, i; .I I i i i 5

4.ThedefendarrtNo.8inhiswrittenstatementstatedt}rat plot 1(a) was allotted to him by Kasibugga Co-operative Housing society Ltd., through allotment certificate dated 09.08'1989 a'd that plaintiff or defendants 1 to 5 have no right in it' .The plaintiff further submitted that he had recently 5. discovered certain documents which revealed that defendant '', no.lhadacquiredsubstantialpropertiesinhisownlq+.e,4S well as in the names of his family members and relative"' h Suney Nos. 106 and 1O7 and was also engaged in.real estate busiitess by acquiring Ac'5'2O guntas in Survey Nos' 228 ' 226'' 2ls, arrd 2l!7 from p. prakasam and p. Rukkaiah, along with other partners, using joint family funds' The plaintiff ciaimed 'that Dl earned considerable profits from these tra'nsactions' which were liable for partition. The plaintiff also subrnitted that itcametohisnoticethatdefendantNo.2wasdoingbusiness under the name and style of ,,Shilpa Kangan Hall,' which had beenstartedbytheirfatherusingjointfamilyfundsinth,ename of defendant No.2. He further stated that, at tlre time of their father'sdeath,therewascash'gold'andsilverornaments acquired from joint family business profits' which were in the custody of defendant Nos.l and 5. Therefore, the plaintiff 5 contendeit that the properties listed in schedule ,'c', were also liable for partition. 6- In rr:sponse to the above contention, defendant Nos.l tb s and 8 file,i an additional written statement dated 13.03.2ooo denying ttrat defendant No.l owned any properties in Survey Nos. 228 , '.226, 215, and 2LT . They stated that defendant No. 1,s efforts to e:ngage in real estate business were unsuccessful, as the propos,sd land was subject to the Urban ceiling Act and that the plot purchased under Document No. g46/g3 dated 23.o9.1983i was cancelled as it was not available on site. The land in survey llos.228, 226, 215, and 2lr remained in the possession of P. Prakasam.*o p. Rukkaiah, and Dl had no connection with it.Defendant No.l stated that he had purchased items 1 to 3 of schedule nc" under Document Nos. L+26/go, t425/9o a:nd L424lgo dated 2n.r2.lggg from his personal earnings, and that these properties had no relation to the joint family. The defendants further stated that ,,Shilpa Kangan Hall,, was started by defendant No.2 using his own investment and with financial assistance from his father-in-law. Therefore, they claimed tha.t the business was not liable for partition. An additional w'ritten statement was frled on l0.lo.2o0o, wherein \ \ 7 the defendants stated that items 5, 6 and 7 of Schedule "C" belonged to Medaram Jaganadham, the husband of their sister M. Rrshpaleela (defendant No.4). The said Jaganadham had gifted item no. 7 to his daughter Ramadevi at the time of her mariage bn 17.L2.1999, and the grft was registered on

31.O8.2O0O. As such, there were no business prolits, gold ornaments, or cash left by K. Narsaiah that were liable for partition.

7. Basing on the said pleadings, the trial Court framed six issues at the first instance and three additional issues are fram€d after liling additional pleadings and written statements. On behalf of plaintiff hrs.l to 4 were examined and Exs.A.l to A.67 were marked and on behalf of the defendants, Dws. L to 7 were examined and Exs.B.l to B. 14 were marked. Basing on the ;widence and after hearing both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit only to the extent of 1/6tt' share in item No.2 of B'schedule and item No.1(1) of 'C'schedule and for the remaining schedule properties, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the sarne, the present appeal is filed-

8. Heard Sri T.P.Achar5ra, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri P.Iftishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent 8 Nos.2 to 11 and Smt P.Sarada, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.12.

9. The r:ontention of the appellant herein is that the trial court errei, in not granting the relief of 1/5ur share in schedule 'A, B and C' schedule properties as those properties were acquired and developed out of joint family funds and trial court gave much weightage to ttre notice of appellant dated

18.07.1989 to which the defendant No.l did not give reply and non-inclusive of B' schedule property in the said notice was only lack o[ information with the plaintiff. As such, it is no way helpful to, t].e defendants. The trial Court also gave much importance to the decision of caste elders on 18.02. 1994 and

13.O3.199i1 and receipt of difference amount of Rs.l1 ,3LI/- ignoring ttre fact that the amount received out of investment made in respect of House no.1 L-L}-4o/c which is in possession of defendant No.l. He further contended that the trial court erred in ig,noring Ex.B.9 as the defendant No.l got separated from the joint family and agreed to live separately without any property and now squats on 'A'schedule property. The trial court also gave much weightage to Ex.A.4o which is the receipt in the naRle of Anitha Kirana shop being run by the plaintiff. \ 9 to appreciate the evidence on proper The trial court perspective. As such, , prayed this Court to set aside the judgment of trial Court and allow this appeal'

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is no illegality in the judgment of trial Court and there are no merits in this appeal. The trial Court discussed all the issues at length with all the documentarJr evidence. Therefore, no interference is required and requested this Court to dismiss this aPPeal.

11. Basing on the above submissions, now the points to be determined are :

1. Whether the plaintiff is able to prove that all the suit schedule properties are joint family properties, if so, h.ce- entitled for partition of all the properties ?

2. Whether there was any earlier partition on l8-o2- 1994 as alleged by defen'dant nos.l to 5 and 1O ?

3. Whether the final setflernent through an agreement of partition dated 13.03.lgg4 is valid and binding on the plaintiff ? 10

4. Whether item No.l of E|' schedule property belongs to defr:ndant No.8 ?

5. Whr:ther item Nos.3 and 4 of T|'schedule are exclusive property of defendant No.1O available for partition ?

6. Whr:ther the .C' schedule properties are available for partition ?

7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary partles ? FOINT NOs.l TtO 3 :

12. The r:ontention of plaintiff in the trial court is that all the properties are acquired by their father K.Narsaiah, defendant No.l and himself from and out of the profits received in their business, rvhereas the contention of defendants is that all the properties are self-acquired properties of late K.Nars.aiah. According to the plaintiff, hirnself, Narsaiatr and defendant No.l maintained kirana and firewood business, whereas, the defendant No.1 contention is tJlat himself and plaintiff separated lrom the joint family in the year 1984 itself. According to defendant No.l as loss sustained in the business and as per the decision of elders, he agreed to live separately without any property, whereas Ex.B.9 was not acted upon as \ \ LL K.Narsaiah, plaintiff ald defendant No.1 did business in the year Lg84 and disputes arose between them, they approached elders for settlement of accounts. At that time, plaintiff and defendant No.1 deposited Rs,SOO/- with the elders, thereafter, the elders perused the accounts produced by the plaintiff and defendant No.l and foqnd a sum of Rs.41,6941- was due by them joinfly. A sum of Rs.34,O54.2Ops, was stock in trade and a sum of Rs.763g.45 ps was due by the joint family- The elders have decided that an amount of Rs.2L,625/- is in excess with plaintiff and he has to pay Rs. l,25Ol- till the debt of K-Narsaiah is discharged. It was also agreed tl.at plaintiff shall pay Rs.1OO/- per month towards maintenance of K.Narsaiah- [t was also decided that defendalt No.l shall receive Rs'1250/- from his father and see that debts are discharged and he should also pay Rs.lOO/- for his father's maintenance and that Narsaiah shor-lld not borrow alrJr amount and give to his sons and from that time, the plaintiff ald defendant No.l are liable for the profits and losses of Kirala ald Beedi businesses respectively and from that day onwards, they are living separately.

13. In cross-examination, Br.1 admitted that in 1984 as the disputes arose between his father and defendant No-l, he has L2 shown the accounts of Beedi business at the instance of his father anrl in the panchayat, elders decided those disputes, but he do not know the decision. He also admitted that he signed on that decision and also signed on the agriement of ;, arbitration, he also signed on Ekrarnama dated L7.O6.1994 and decision dated 2O.O7.f 984 but he do not know their contents and he did not sign on the documentdated i+.aq.fg8O shown to him. He also admitted tl,rat on 18.02. lgglthere was a panchayal. and elders passed a decision in which, himself; and defendant Nos.l to 3 and 5 signed and basing on the said decision his mother wrote a partition deed and obtained their signatures. As per the said deed, a portion of old house was allotted to him and house in which defendant No.l is running Kirana shop fell to his share and after ascertaining valuation of the said house, elders made him to agree and got paid Rs.11,311,/- from deftndant No.I to plaintiff. Rv.1 also admitted that item Nos.3 and 4 of B'schedule are in the name of defend:rnt No.lo and he denied that tl:e husband of defendant No.4 purchased three house ptots at Enumamula with his retirement benefits and obtained registered sale deed in his favour. In the said registered sale deed it is recited t]lat Jagannadh.am purchased those plots and also denied that \ \ 13 defendant No.l and other brothers have no right in those three with regard to item Nos'3 and 4 plots. The admission of PlaintiIf of B' schedule shows that tl.e said properties are defendant No.lopropertieswhoist}rewifeofdefendarrtNo.landitisnot inthenarneofdefendantNo'l'F\lrtfter'threeplotswere purchasedbythehusbandofdefendarrtNo.4andtheyarenot the joint family properties. Thougtr, he contended that two plots were sold to defendant Nos.8 and 9 by the father and defendant No.l,nodocumentisfrledbytheplaintifftoprovethesame. ltem Nos.3 and 4 of B, schedule properties are sold to V.Kedari, whosoldt]resametoK.Sugunawhoinflrrnsoldtlresameto thirdparties,assuchnopropert5rislSrlableforpartition.The evidence on record shows that tl'e disputes arose between the partiesandthesamewasreferredtoelders,rrnderarbitration agreementonl8.l2.lggSarrdelderspasseddecisionunder Bx.g.lo valuing item No.1 of .A, schedule property in which defendantNo.lisrunningKiranashop'atRs'2'76'7OOl-and itemNo.2atRs.l,12,706l-,itemNo'3atRs'98'O6Ol-'itemNo'4 atRs.t,32,82gl--InitemNo'lof'A'schedule'defendantNo'l is residing, in item No.2 of 'A' schedutre, plaintiff is residing' in item No.3, defendant No'2 is residing and in item No'4' defendant No.3 is residing and.in the said decision all tl.e elders 14 have stat=d that 10 Sq yards of vacant site appurtenant to item No.l of 'lf schedule house has to be given to defendant No.l towards Jyesta Bagham as he is the erder son and as defendant No.l iricurred Rs.34,ooo/- when his father sustained fracture and also for the death obsequies, elders directed the praintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 to share the same @ Rs.rr,gg3/- each. Plaintiff and defendant No.2 are also due some amount to defendant No.l- Thus, totally the praintiff and defendant No.2 are due a-n amount of Rs.12,r33/- each to defendant No.l, elders alsc, directed the plaintiff, defendant Nos.l to 3 that after partitioning the properties equally among themselves, out of the excess amount they have to pay Rs.gooo/- to their sister ad Rs.2o,oOo/- to their mother and. if any amount and gold given to defendant No.S remains after her death, the same has to be partitioned among all brothers and defendant No.S has to resid.e with deftnclant No.3. [n clause 9 of Ex.B.Io it is mentioned t]rat if defendant No. r has acquired any landed property or cash in bank prior to 26.01. r9g4 without disclosing to his brothers and at later poirrt of time it comes to light he shall have no right over those propr:rties, but his three brothers wourd have right to partition equally. [n clause '1o' of Ex.B.10 the elders directed \ \ 15 the brothers to express whether any one of them are willing to purchase item No.1 of A' schedule within 15 days' :

14. PtIr.2 is one of tl.e elder to Ex.B.10 and Dw.4 who was the surpanch was also eld.er to Ex.8.10. on 07.o3.Lg84 it was endorsed that none of tl.e brothers calne forward to purchase, then they prepared a calculation memo how the brothers have to partition equally. As such, they partitioned under Ex.B.ll dated 13.03. lgg4in which the elders and Defendarrt No 5 gave item No.1 of 'A' schedule to defendant No.l directing him to pay excess amount as decided by them in DLB.IO ald they also gave remaining houses as stated in Ex'B'10' As per Ex'B'1O' defendanr No.1 has to pay Rs.22,4441- toplaiatiff and pl,aintiff has to pay Rs.11,333/- to defendant No'l. as per Ex'B'10 towards expenses incurred by him for his father's treatment and obsequies. Hence, defendant No.l was liable to pay a sum of Rs.11 ,3lll- to the plaintiff and Rs.25,357l- to defendant No'2, and Rs.3,32L/- to defendant No.3. Deferrdant No.1 was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.SOOO/- obtained by him under Freedom fighters scheme to defendant No.3 and some househotd articles were given to defendant No.l and plaintiff' Though plaintiff denied the same stating ttrat a panchayat was 16 held it nras not fruitful and faited. According to him the house allotted to defendant No.l is worth of Rs.3o lakhs whereas Ex.B.1o and B.l I shows- as Rs.2,6 z ,ooo l-. Though opportunity was given to all the brothers to purchase the same, none of them corne forward, as such, the elders partitioned as per Ex.8.11. The main contention of appellant herein is that the trial court erred in giving weightage to Exs.B.Io and B.l1 though ttrey are unregistered documents. The settled principle of law is that even though the family settlement is unregistered document, if it is acted upon it can be considered. In the present case also, admission of plaintiff as Rv.2 shows that setflement between the parties was acted upon, it can be proved that division of property took place. As such, it can be held that there is prior partition with regard to .A, schedule propert5r under Exri.B.lo and 8.11. As such there is no illegality in deciding flre issue by the triar court. Hence, point Nos.l to B are answercd. FOIIIT Ifo.4 :

15. with regard to item No.l of T!, schedule propert5r, the contention of plaintiff is that it was allotted to K.Narsaiah and defendant ItIo- 1 by Kasibugga Housing Society and they sold the same to d,:fendant Nos.8 and 9. In the present case, suit \ \*to :l I : l,i t: l. ! t: L7 against defendant No.9 is dismissed for default. Defendant No'8 was exarnined as Dw.6, wherein he stated that the said plot was a[olted to him by Kashibugga Housing Society in w!ic!,h",'yes amember.HeliledthedocumentunderExBl2showing payment of Rs-1OO/- as share capital and Rs'10/- toward's admissionfeeunderEx.B.l3andpaidRs.L6,St2|-towardscost of the plot. He also filed Ex.B.14 plot altotted certifrcate and j accordingtohim,societydeliveredpossessionofplo!to,him. He also stated that defendant No.1 and K.Narsaiatr, have no right over the said Plot'

16.Toprovehiscontention,plaintiffreliedonEx.A..l6two receiptsissuedbyKashibuggaHousingSocietytodefendarrt No.landK.NarsaiahwithadmissionsNos.6o,and5g'Exs.A.43 artd44NilpaymentvoucherssignedbydefendantNo.land NarsaiahunderwhichtheyreceivedRs.4oo/-eachfromthe secretary, Kashibugga Housing Society for the refund of part of the amount paid by them towards the initial deposit to acquire landofsriAhmedHussain.ToprovethatitemNo.lofB, schedulehouseplotsoldbyNarsaiahandDefendantNo.lno document was filed by the ptaintiff. According to him, he verified the society register and found his father and defendant 18 No.l s,cld,two plots to defendant Nos.g and 9, but there is no docum,ent frled by the plaintiff to prove the same. on the other hand, ,cefendant No.g triled Exs .8.L2 to B. 14 to show that he paid the amount to societ5r and he is a member of the society and thr: said property was allotted to him and for the other party the suit was arready dismissed as no process was paid to defendant No.9. Therefore, there is no iflegality in the judgment of trial rlourt in deciding this issue that plaintiff has no right in item No,1 of T!, schedule propert5r. POINT T{O.5 _ _

17. The contention of plaintiff is that defendant No.l purchasr:d item Nos.3 and 4 of .B, schedure in the name of his wife-defendant No.ro with joint family funds. As such they are liable for partition. The contention of defendant No.1o is that it was purchased by her through her stridhana. she was examinecl as Dw.7 and her evidence is that she was having two plots at tihayampet purchased from one v.Kedari. one of the plot was purchased about 2o years ago and another plot was purchaserl about rs years ago. According to her at the time of her marriage her parents gave six turas of gold and she purchasecl two plots by selling the same and later due to financial obligations, she again approached her father and \ \ 19 expressed her willingness to sell those two plots and again sold tJle said plots to Kedari about 10 years back. Therefore, there is no such property available as on today. The plaintiff fi1ed Ex.A.l 1 certified copy of registered sale deed dated 07.08.1982 ,] under which defendant No.lO purchased 597 Sq yards'of land in sy.No. 17 ofshayampet village for Rs.5,87O/-. Sri v. Kedari sold item No.4 of 'B' schedule property to one K.Suguna and also sold item No.3 of Tl' schedule property to an extent of 689 sq yards in sy.No. 17 of Shayampet viltage. The boundaries in Ex.A.l1 and the tand sold under Ex.A.3O are one and t]le same. According to the plaintiff as disputes arose between the parties, defendant No.1 clandestinely sold properties through V.Kedari, whereas the contention of Dw.l is that his father-in-law purchased the said properties in the name of his wife and his wife sold the same to V.Kedari who in turn sold the same to third parties. When plaintiff is claiming that those properties are purchased with the joint family funds by defendant No.1, he has to prove the same, but no such document is filed by the plaintiff to prove the same. Further the properties were sold to third party K.Suguna who is not a party to the suit. Therefore, plaintiff cannot claim those properties as joint fami$ properties' Accordingly, this point is answered. 20 FOINTIII()s.6 &7'.

18. The remaining properties to be decided are that item No.2 of 'B and C' schedule properties. Item No.2 of B' schedule property rrrds purchased by defendant No.l in favour of his minor sorr defendant No.ll under Ex.A.28. The suit against defendant Irlo.11 is dismissed for default, but defendant No.l who purch.ased. this item in favour of his minor son is contesting the suit, as such, there is no adverse interest between defendant Nos.l *d 11. Ex.A.28 is an unregistered deed dated 23.09.1983 and admitted by defendant No.l that the land was covered under Urbar.r Land Ceiling Act, so it was cancelled as such the same is not available for partition. But defendant . No.l failed to frle any document to show that it was cancelled. The admisr;ion of defendant No.1 that during the tife rime of his father, he r:ntered into sale in the name of his son, but later it was found that the vendor delivered the plot which u,as covered under Urb:rn land ceiling which itself shows tn*at there is no denial that it was not purchased from the joint family properties. Therefore, it can be said that the said propergr was purchased by defendant No.l in the name of his son from the joint family funds. \ \ 2L -__l l I

19. Further, the 'C'schedule properties are in Sy.No.2l5 and 2LZ to an extent of 240.66 Sq yards and 313.85 sq yards were purchased.by defendant No.l. Thus, sale took place prior to

26.OL.1984 and Dw.l admitted that he purchased the propert5r under E;x;A-LZ and later stated that it was purchased by his father and it was lost under urban land ceiling, then they obtained cancellation deed, but no such cancellation deed was filed before the trial Court. When Dw.l admitted purchase of said property with the joint family funds, if it is cancelled, the burden lies onldefendant No.1 to file the said document to prove that it is not available for partition. When no such document is filed, it can be concluded that item No.1 of C' schedule property is purchased by K. Narsaiah and it is available for partition.

20. Further Item No.2 of C' schedule propert5r is 313.85 sq. yards rn Sy.No.lO7 purchased by plaintiff under document dated 2O:.L2.,L99O in which defendant No.1 purchased the s€une from N.Venkatapapi Reddy (Pw.4) and item No.3 of C' schedule purchased by defendant No.l from Rr.4 under Ex.A.15 and these documents are subsequent to 26.01.1984 i.e., after partiti.,on of the properties under A' schedule. The main argurnent of the appellant/plaintiff is that there is a clause in 22 earlier €rgreement under clause 9 that if any properties purchase:d by defendant No.1 come to light afterwards, they are to be par-titioned between plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3. The said agreement is of the year Ig}4 and these properties were purchased in the year 1990. Though plaintiff contends that these properties w€re purchased from the joint family funds, nc, evidence is adduced to prove the same. All these sale deeds are after 1984 as such, plaintiff cannot claim those propertie:i as joint family properties. Item Nos.S, 6 and r of ,c, schedule properties i.e., house plots to an extent of 314.95,

519.59 and 283.33 sqyards in sy.Nos.1o7 and 1o6 are in the name of ,cne M.Jaganadham, the husband of defendant No.4. Though plaintiff claimed those properties as joint family properties,, no document is liled to prove the same. The said Jaganadham worked in Ajam Jahi Mills and according to him he purchersed the same with his retirement benefits. Therefore, plaintiff cannot claim those properties as joint family properties. Item No.ll of 'c' schedule i.e., Shilpa Kangan Hall was run by Dw.5 whc, is defendant No.2 in tlle suit. According to the plaintiff ttre said Kangan Hall was started by his father, later it was continued by defendant No.2, whereas, defendant No.2 stated that he started the said Kangan Hall in the year l9g3 \ \ 23 after tl e death of his father by selling the gold ornaments of his wife for investment and also by obtaining loans and no amount ., from .his fathel was u$lised for the said Kangan Hatt. When plaintiff is claiming that the said Kangan hall was started from the joint family funds, he has to prove the same. But no document is filed in support of his contention. Hence, it is also not liable for partition.

21. F\rrthermore, with regard to item No.lll of 'C' schedule propert5r, plaintiff claimed that his father did real estate business and Ex.A.21 is the receipt dated 13.10.1998 executed by Samu Mohan Babu in favour of defendant No.l for Rs.3O,OOO/- and Ex.A.21 entry is also mentioned in Exs.A.32 and A.33 which are in the handwriting of defendant No.l relating to real estate business and some amounts given to Mohan Babu and pattedars and registration expenses etc., are mentioned in them which are of the year 1983. The defendant No.l and K.Narsaiah did real estate business in the year 1983 which became futile as the land proposed to be purchased for this purpose was covered by ULC Act and the same cannot be done in a concealed manner, as such, it was not mentioned while settling the matter. In partitioning 'A'schedule properties, 24 according to plaintiff, there was cash and gold worth Rs.14 lakhs in the joint family. But the documents filed by the plaintiff are no way helpful to prove the same and without arry evid^ince, he cannot claim that there is Rs.14 lakhs worth of cash and gold belonging to joint family. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for the sarne. Hence, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit only to thr: extent of 1/6ttr share in item No2 of Et'schedule, and item No.1(1) of 'C' schedule properties ald directed the defendants for partitioning item No.2 of B'schedule, and item No.1(1) of C'schedule properties into six equal shares and to give one su.ch share to the plaintiff. Hence, there is no illegatity in the judgment of trial Court and no interference of this Court is required. M.Jaganadham purchased plot Nos.S to 7 of item No.l of .C' schedule propert5r, but he is not made a party to the suit. Further item Nos.3 and 4 of T!' schedule propert5r was purchased by K.Suguna and srrle is also not made a party to the suit. As a part of the propert5r was purchased by the said persons, they are necessary parties to the suit. Hence the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. There are no merits in this appeal as such the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly', these points are answered' \ \ 22 IN THE RESULT, tJ:e Appeal Suit is dismissed' No costs' Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any' shall stand closed. /ffRUE COPY// Sd/. V. KAVITHA DEPUW REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal senior civil .Judge; warangal. ( with^records ) 2. One CC to SRl. T. P. ACHARYA, Advo-cate [OPUCI- 3. one CC to SRl. P. KRISHNA REDDY, Advocate [oPUc] 4. One CC to Smt. P. SARADA, Advocate (OPUC) 5. Two CD Copies ' \ Kul/DL I J HIGH COiJ,RT DATED:I 111212025 + DECREE: JUDGMEhIT APPEAL SiUIT No.386 of 2003 (, ! 0 6 r[B ?07$ TXSMISSING TFIE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURTfOR-THE.ST.ATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,TI.IE ELEVENTH DAY OF DrcEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA . APPEAL SUIT NO: 386 OF 2003 Between: Koorpati Shankar S/o Late Narsaih, aged 44 years, Occ: Business R./o 11-2AX5, Kasibugga, Warangal Town, Warangal District. ...APPLICANT / Plaintiff AND

1. Koorapati Pentaiah S/o late Narsaiah, aged 54 years, Occ: Business R/o. 1 1 -1 5-1 00/C,. Kasibugrga, Warargal Town, Warangal.

2. l(oorpati Kumaraswamy(Died as per LR's RR12 to 15), S/o late Narcaiah Business R/o 11-1 14l4l2,lGsibugga, Warangal Town, Warangal.

3. Koorpati Rajasekhar, S/o late Narsaiah, aged 34 years Occ: Employee R/o 1 1 -1 1 1 41 413, Kasibugga, Wara ngal Tornrn, Wara n gal .

4. Madarapu Pushpa Leela, Wo SriJagannadham, aged 40 years, Occ: Household R/o 1 1-19/17, Kasibugga, Warangal Town, Warangal. 5. Koorpati Laxmi, Wo late Narsaiah, aged 70 yers, Occ: Household R/o 11-1 141413, Kasibugga, Warangal Town, Warangal

6. Perugu Cheralu, S/o Mallaiah C/o V. Lachamma, Occ: Coolie No 23-6ft8, Huntur Road, Shyampet, Hanamkonda, Warangal.

7. Velpula Lachamma, Wo ]Gnakaiah, aged 56 years, Employee of Zilla Parishad Rlo 235f78, Huntur Road, Shyampet, Hanamkonda , Warangal. 8. Banka Samaiah, S/o Veeraiah, aged Eusiness, Occ: Business R/o H.No. 1 1 -22-277, Narsarnpet Road, Warangal.

9. Banka Ramaswqmy, S/o Yellaiah Emptoyee Regl. Engineering Cotlege R/o H. No.'1 1 -17 -92, Kasibugga, Warangal Town, Warangal. 1O.Smt. K. Sarojana, Wo Pentaiah, aged 38 years Occ: Household R/o H.t\to. 1 1 -1 5-100/C, Kasibugga, Warangal Town, Warangal Dist.

11. K. Satish Kumar, S/o Pentaiah, aged 22 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 1 1 -1 5-1 00/C, Kasibugga, Warangal Town, Warangal District.

12. Smt. Koorapati Sulochana, Wo. Late Koorapati Kumaraswamy, Hindu, Aged about 52 years, R/o. H.l,lo. 11-22-2711, Kasibugga, Warangal Town - 506 002, T.S. l3.Koorapati Swetha, D/o. Late Koorapati Kumaraswamy, Hindu, Aged about 35 yeani, R/o. H.No. 11-22-2711, Kasibugga, WarangalTown -506 002, T.S.

14. Koorapati Arun, S/o. Late Koorapati Kumaraswamy, Hindu, Aged about 32 yeani, R/o. H.No. 11-22-2711. Kasibugga, WarangalTown -506 002, T.S.

15.Koorapati Naveen, S/o. Late Koorapati Kumaraswamy, Hindu, Aged about 30 yeani, R/o. H.No. 11-22-2711, Kasibugga, WarangalTown 506 002, T.S. (Res,condents No. 12to 15 are brought on record as legal represenlative of Respondent No.2 as per Court Order dated 15{07-2024 in lA 1 of 20241 ...RESPONDENTS Appeal Under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and preliminary decree daled 22-04-2002 in O.S.No. 90 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal The apprs2l coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds filed in the l\ppeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the record in the case an,l upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.P. ACHARYA, Advocate for the Appellant ard Sri P. KR{SHNA REDDY, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 and Smt. P. SARADA, Advocate for the Respondent No. 12 . This Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed and

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal ,,TRt'E COPY'/ Sd/. V. KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR G- SECTION OFFICER To 1,. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. 2. Two C.D.Copies t t HIGH C:OURT DATED:1 111212025 + DECR:EE APPEAI- SUIT No.386 of 2003 DISMISSiING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUIT COSTS 9P Ir lu