The High Court · 2025

...RespondenURespondenUPlaintiff lA NO: 3 OF 2022 Petition under Section'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including execution of Judgment and Decree in OS No '143 ol 2012 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, Dt.3111212018 as confirmed in AS No. 39 of 2019 Dt 3010912021 Vth Additional District Judge Court, Karimnagar. SCHEOULE OF PROPERTY The Hour;e bearing No. 9-7-6l Corresponding to Old No. 9-6-208 situated at Ramnagar, locality of Karimnagar town is having the following boundaries East : House of Laxminarsaiah West : Public Road North : House of Satyanarayana South: Road lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition rnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fil,:d in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order daled 2710912022 and subsequently extended from time to time till 27103t2024 through an order dated 0810112024 in l.A 3 of 2022 in S A no 253 of 2022 pending disposal of the case in the interest ofjustice. lA NO: 1 OF 2Ct25 Petition under Section 100(5) Provision praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to fra re the following additional substantial question of law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. "Whether the suit for partition is maintainable against the appellants when the right devolved to the Respondent by virtue of the property of his mother's stridhana. U/s 15 of Hindu Succession Act to the Respondent herein in the light of the above. Whether suit for partition or suit for declaration of title has to be resolved as additional substantial question of law." Counsel for the Appellants : Sri. M V Praveen Kumar Counsel for tl^re Respondents : None Appeared The Court del vered the following: - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL SECOND APPEAL NO.253 OF 2022 JUDGMENT: The present APPeal is filed bY the appellants/defendants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3o.og.2o2l passed in A.S.No.39 of 2019 on the fite of the learned v Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (.the appellate Court',), confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2018 passed in o.s.No.143 0f 2012 0n the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar ('the trial Court')'

2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff before the trial court. a For the sake of convenience hereinafter parties are referred to as defendants and Plaintiff

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff's mother by name Sarala was the first wife of Jagannatham. The said Saroja died immediately after the birth of the plaintiff. Thereafter, Jagannatham got married with \ \\ 2 defendant No.l and blessed with defendant Nos.2 to 4. Jagannatl-ram died in the Month of November, 2010. Thus, defencant No.1 is the step mother of the plaintiff and the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 constitutes joint Hindu family, The marriage of the plaintiff's mother was perfor:necl about 34 years back and after the marriage her matenral uncle Ramaiah Panthulu got purchased reside':rtial land to an extent of 242 sq.yards (o.O2 guntas) in Sy. \1o.1060 given to he as Sridhana and in ttrrn it was registr:red in the name of her husbanC later Jagannatham. The siild jagannatham u,as native of Elagandal Village of Karimnagar Mandal and he is having an old ancestral house in the said village arrd Ire sold or-rt the old house to a villager of Gouda Comrnuirit-y for a sale considcration of Rs.23.O0O/- in the -year 1980 and with that sale consicleration, he constructed the house H.No.9-7-61 corresponding to old H.No.9-6-2O8, situated at Ramnagar locality of l(arimnagar town

4. ,\fter the demise of Jagannatham, defendant Nos.l to 4 developed an evil motive to grab the suit property by ( 3 denying his share. The plaintiff demanded the defendants to make partition and separate possession by allotting, 1/5tn share to him on 01.05.2012 but the defendants did not come forward to cooperate with the plaintiff in division of the suit land. Therefore, the plaintiff, on 04.05.2012 along with elders approached the defendants and requested them to make partition but the defendants bluntly refused to do so and used to make propaganda to dispose of the suit property without his consent. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.143 of 2Ol2 before the trial Court.

5. Defendant No.l filed written statement stating that the suit property i.e., H.No.9-7-61 is already partitioned. The present house in which the plaintiff is residing is bearing H.No.9-6-193 (old); 9-7-155 (new) is the Stridhana property of Jagannatham's. It is different property but not the suit property and the house was constructed by the father of plaintiff, Jagannatham and the said house which was not registered on the narne of the deceased Jagannatham and still stands in the name of Kousalya and 4 the prrperty is not registered but stand in the name of Kousalya, mother-in law of the said Jagannatham, and he has br:en paying the property tax for this house. The house being the Stridhana property the Hon'ble Court may be pleetsed to partition the said house into 1/5tn share and to give 1/5tn share to the plaintiff and the remaining four shares shall be given to the defendants. The plaintiff did not approach the Hon'ble Court with clean hands and he has suppressed the true facts and with a view to have unlawful gain, he came forward with this suit, rvith untenable grounds which does not stand in the eyes of law.

6. At the time of trial, plaintifi No.1 got himself examirred as PW.1 and got marked the docurnents Ex.A1 to A4. Dr:fendant Nc.2 got himseif examined as DW.1 and got marke<l E>cB i to 8.15

7. After full-fledged trial and upon considering the oral and documentary evicience and the contentions of both the parties, the trial Court has decreed the O.S.No.l43 of 2Ol2 on 31.12.2018 stating that the suit property is joint family properly of plaintiff and defendants. The property belongs 5 to the father of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff being son of Jagannatham, is entitled to 1/Stn share along with each of the defendants. The defendants failed to prove that the plaintiff received the amount towards his share and relinquished his rights over the property. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the share. B. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2018 in O.S.No.143 of 2012, the defendants preferred an Appeal uide A.S.No.39 of 2019, before the appellate Court. The appellate Court, uide judgment dated 30.O9.2021, dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.143 of 2Ol2 dated

31.12.2O18. Assailing the same, the appellants/defendants preferred the present Second Appeal

9. Heard learned counsel appearing for appellants/defendants and perused the record

10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the Courts below denied the benefit of family settlement deed and brushed aside the evidence of the o appellants herein, and the appellate Court confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial Court' without proper appreclation of the material on record' The family settlerrient deed having given effect by the parties under Ex.Bl[i was totally ignored by both the Courts below' whichnecessarilyraisesaquestionoflawnotdepending onfactsandcircumstances.Hence,seeksindulgenceof this Court

11. tn the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusing the material available on record, this court is of the opinion that the trial court as well as. the appellate Court, Lrpon careful scrutin}' of the materral available on record have rightly passed their respe<:tive judgments and this Court does not see any question of lar,v, mrrch less substantiai question of law to interft:re with the well reasoned judgments passed by the Courts belovr,.

12. Ail the coirtention's raised b]' tht learned counsel for the appellants are questions of fact, which have already been addressed by both the courts below. This court ./ ,/s ,/ I 7 sitting under Section 100 C.P.C, does not re-appreciate the same in this Second APPeal.

13. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed' Pending miscellaneous applications, if afly', shall stand closed SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ \ To, ,/TRUE COPY/ CTION OFFICER

1. The V Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.(with records) 2. The Additional Senior Civil Judge at kariml"-9."t 3. One CC to Sri ftf V Pt"""n Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies DL\PS L W '-'--- 1 c-f FTI'E 19 [$"8 ?t[$ CIo HIGH COI'RT DATED: 1''11112A25 JUDGMET SA.No.253 of 2022 DISMISSIING THE S.A G ?g \ v \ [ 32ee I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL SECOND APPEAL NO: 253 OF 2022 Between:

1. Kurmachalam Viiaya, Wo. Late Jagannatham Aged about 56 years, Occ' tiouJewite, Rlo 'g]-61, Ramnagar Locality, Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar District.

2. Kurmachalam Anil Kumar, S/o. Late Jagannatham A.ged a.loqt 37 years, Occ' pvt. Empfoyee, R/o. b-l-At, Ramiagar Local-ity, Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar District.

3. Kurmachalam Naresh, S/o. Late Jagannatham. Aged ab-qu! J9 years, R/o 9-7- 6i; R;m nagar Loca lity, Kari m nagar-Town, Karimnagar District.

4. Kurmachalam Krishna, S/o. late Jagannatham Aged ab-o.u! J7. years' R/o 9-7- bT; namnagir Locality, KarimnagaiTown, Karimnagar District. ...Appel lants/Appe I lants/Defen dants AND Kurmachalam Venumadhav, S/o Late Jagannatham, Aged aqgu! 39 years, R/o g-?-f 5S, Ramnagai LoCality, KarimnagaiTown, Karimnagar District. ...RespondenURespondenUPlaintiff Appeal under section 100 of C.P.C against.the Judgment and Decree Dated 30.09.2021 passed in A.s. No. 39 of 2019 on the file of the cdurt of the v Addl' District Judge, Karimnagar preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 31t1212018 passed in o.s. No.143 of 2012 on the file of the court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge at karimnagar. \ This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. M V Praveen Kumar, Advocate for the appellants and None appeared Advocate for the Respondent' This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: That the l=amily Court Appeal be and hereby is dismissed; and //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR J SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The \/ Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. 2. The r\dditional Senior Civil Judge at karimnagar 3. Two CD Copies DL/PSL 4e, - I HIGH COURT DATED: 1111112025 DECREE SA.No.253 ,of 2022 DISMISSING THE S.A ?tl )