The High Court · 2025

...APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS Yelti Bhagiratha Bai, Wo yelti Naga Reddy, aged 64 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Pochara Mandal District Adila6ad. Goka laxmi Bai, Wo-Subhash Reddy, D/o yetti Naga Reddy, aged 56 years, occ: Agriculture, R/o Ruyyadi viflage, Mandat iarJriaaugu.'oisIri"t aaiiauiJ. .9^ol_idif:-dqt Wl9 Nar1v.a1.Reddy, D/o rate yettiNaga Reddy, ased 54 years, ucc: Agricurture, R/o Kamgiri village, Mandal lc-hoda, Distric"t. Adilabad. Yedmala v-enkatamma, wo Divakar Reddy D/o rate yerti Naqa Reddv. aoe 4v years, occ: Agriculture, R/o Kouta Village. Mandal Boath,-Dist. nOitiOiO. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition undel Section 151 of C p.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad,dated. tg-12-2019, in O.S.No.1 of 2011 including passing of final decree. Counsel for the Appellants :SRl V. ROHITH Counsel for the Respondent No.'l : NONE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: SRI S.SURENDER REDDY The Court made the following : JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISIIETTY SECOND APPEAL No.522 of 2024 JUDGMENT: The Second Appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree, dated 13.09.2023, passed by the Principal District .ludge. Adilabad in A.S.No. 14 of 2020, whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree, dated 19.12.2019, passed by the Senior Civit Judge, Adilabad in O.S No. I ol 20ll was confirmed.

2. The appellants herein are defendants and respondents herein are plaintiffs in the suit. For convenicnce, hereinafter the parties arc rel'erred to as lhey were arrayed in the suit. 3 The brief facts of the case, which led to filing ol thc present Second Appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for. partition of thc suit schedule properties I to 4 and separate possession and also seeking a clirection to Tahsitdar, Adilabad to incorporate their narnes in the revenue rccords by cancelling the name of defendant No.1 as pattedar and cultivator in suit schedule properties Nos. 1 to 4 in lorm No.7, I(B) and in pahanies and other relevant revenue documents. In the plaint, it is averred that late Yclti Naga Reddy was the common ancestor. During the lifetimc of late Yelti Naga -/ I ) L \",1, J \.1 lrit 5ll ol )l))4 Reddy he married to Yetti Linga and through her he got one son namely Yelti Ganga Reddy. After the death of yelti linga, yelti Naga Redd-y man'ietl plaintilf No. I and through her, he got thrce daughters i.e., ptaintifl' Nos 2 to 4. The said Yelti Naga Reddy died leaving behind his wif'e/plaintirT No.l and his daughters/plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 besicrcs his son yetti Ganga Reddy. Thereafter. Yelti Ganga Reddy died leaving trehind defendant Nos. l to 3 as his legal heirs. 1'hough, Late yelti Naga Reddy acquired rhe ownership and possession over the suit schedule properties t to 4 as legal successors, alter death of late yelti Naga Reddy, the ptaintiffs ancl defendants arc in joi.t possession and enjoyment of itself. The plaintiff No. I filed an application for mutation of her name and she came to know that def'endant No. I in collusion with revenue authorities recorded her name and obtained proceedings in the year 2009 and she tried to alienate thc suit schedule propc(y. Ilence. suit for partition and prayed Lo pass pretiminary decrec

4. Del'endanl Nos. I to 3 filed written statement dcnying all thc facts and averments of thc plaipt and admitted that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properlies of Yelti Naga Reddy. It is averrcd that there was oral farnily scttlement in betn,een Yetti Naga Reddy and his son yelti Ganga -t 3 J;1.,\ o -j-'-' ()/ -'//'J Reddy and plaintiffs about 15 years back with regard to suit schedule property. As per the said settlement, lands admeasurinr Ac.4-68 cents situated in Sy.No. l/3, lands admeasuring Ac. l-15 ccnts situated in Sy.No.2/1, lands admeasuring Ac.0-45 cents situated in Sy.No.2r2 and house bearing No.2-132ll fell into the share of Yelti Ganga l{eddir and lands admeasuring Ac.2-00 situated in Sy.No. l/3 and house bcaring No.2-70 fell to the share of plaintiff No.1 for her life time and thercatler, lands adrneasuring Ac.2-00 felt into the share of the ptaintifl No.2 and lts. 15,000/- each was given to plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 towards their share in the presence o1- elders. Due to ill-health suffered by Yelti Ganga Reddy, deltndant No. I got transferred the suit lands to Tippireddy Satish Reddy/det-endan t No.4 urrder registered sale deed dated 10.05.2010 stating that she sold the said lands only to discharge debts and to meet legal necessity of her.joint larnily and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit 4(ii) Defendant No.4 filed written statement adopting the written staterlent filed by defendant Nos. I to 3 and stated that defendant No. I solci the lands to him for the purpose of marriage of defendant No.3 and to nreet legal necessity of her family under regtstered sale deed No.3408/20 10, dated

10.05.20 l0 and he got mutated his name and prayed to dismiss the suit 4 !:A \o i)) o/ 20)4

5. Based on the above pleadings made by both pafties, the tr-ial Court framcd the tbllowing issues lor trial:_ I t i) ll'lrcthgr tht,ra yr.u.t dt/indort.s') orul .fantil.y scttlcn('tit a.\ (.onteniul hv ii) lllrcth<,r pluinti.[/;; uncl dtlettdttnt-s qrc in i()itlt posse.s.sioa of pt ()p('rl.v .tttiI .tcItcdulc propcrlics a.s pIeatletl b1, p|ainti/[s? iiil l|'hatltct Court -/bt, puid i.s incorrcct? ir) ll.'lrctlu,r ptuintiflt ure antitlctl .for relit,l tf purtition arrcl prc I r n t i r ru r.t, dac t.t,<, u.s pruyetl.fbr? v) lt,ht,thct. pluirti[fs urc cntitled ./br rccti/ic.ution ()l entrics in pahottrc.s tuu! in fornt (R) us pra_yetl./br? yi) lb,ryfta1 1.21ir,1'.t 6' on behall o' plainriffs, plaintiff No.4 examined herserf as pwl, arso gor examined I'w2 and got marked Exs.A l to A l l. on behalf of defendants, def'endant No. I rvas exalxined as DWl, got examined DW2 and got marked Exs.l.ll to 88. 7 ' Arter furJ-fledged triar and upon considering the oral and (locumentary evidcnce arld thc contentions of both the parties, the trial court decreed the suit irr parl \ ithout c()sts in so rar as suit schedure pr()penies are concerned and passed a p.errminary dccree and lurlher ordered that plaintiff Nos. t to 4 and husband o' cref-endant No.l are entitled [/5,r, share each in the suit j / 5 51 No.il) ol )():1 schedule properties Nos.l to 3. Out of the share of husband ol def'endant No.l, defendant Nos. I to 3 are entitted to l/3'd share each and thc plarntilTs are entitled lor rectification of Exs.Al0 and Al I

8. The trial Court categorically observed as under:- (i) Suil schedule properly No.l is only Ac.3-68cents and as tlrc de/cndunts herein .failed to provc the oral family seltlemcnt, bting the legal heirs of Naga Radd.v, the plaintiffs herein ur. t:nlitled for partilio of suit schedula properties. lloweyer, yith rL,gurd to schedule No.4, there is no documenlary et,idenca pluccd h.v the pluintilf tf house Nos.2-132/l and 2-70 sitltuted at Pochcnt villagc, lt,landul and District Adilabad. T'he defendants or plaintdfs ulso did ot./ilc an), document oJ tha houscs which are in their possession as admitted by de/bndants und plainti"ffs,. Hence, lhc pluinti//:; are not entitled for portition *-ith regard to suil schedula propert.y l,/o.4. Ther<,[ore, the plaintilf is entilled Jbr partition oJ .strit schedula propert.v No.l oJ only Ac.3-68cents and suit schedula propertv No.2 of Sy.No.2/l ertent Ac.l-l5cents and suil schedule propert.v No-3 qfSy.No.2/2 of Ac.0-45cenls onl.y. (ii) T'he tlocunrcntary evidence i.c. Exs.A8, A9 shou,s strit .schedule propcrties in the name ofdefendants. As plaintif/i beiug Lo-ou,nct'.\ possession of one co-ovt'net' is possession oJ ollrcr ctr outrcrs. fulerc entrics of name oJ Dl in Ers.A8 antl A9 does not confer unt,titlc, as mutation proceetlings are only issued reJlecting thut Dl succeeded u: per succes.siun. l[ence, Dl possessiott over thc suit st:lrcdt a pntperties is ul.so to be sccn as possession of pluintiJh hercin. Bcing scpurolc itt nrcss and b.y scparutc cttlliyaliott amongst llrc co-shttrers, it cunnot bc said that thare yu.s 6 \A ,\,t:)) o/ )0 21 porlitiofi ht nu'tc.s und bound.s ot' scparation oi onc of t.oplr(a er:i litn the Lutt'cstn proptt'[.t,- nor q11 cntric;; itt rc,r,entrL,rctttrtls |.tg prorl of l)uttiti() or .\(,1.)Ot (tto rcutrds la' ltru.tl oI purlilion ot. .\cpurLttion it cutt ot ) (a)tlt(, us un uitl il tht'rc i.s ollrcr (og(,nt ct'id(,tk.e ragarding s(lut.ati()tt ot. dilis ittn ttl propcrtl,. ttot. L.Ltn (,tttt.ie\ i t.(,t,cnLK, (iii) I'lta plointi//i oe Lo-parcctters ond entitlcd./i,r the .share ut suit s(lk,dule proputics. 7-he pluintiff.s ./itcd E.r-s,.lg and A9 tvlrere all tlte suit .schedulc properti?s ara cntcrcrj in the nctnte of Dl ad plttittti[/ hcrcin sacking ./itr rcc.tification o.f ?ntric.\. As dafcnduttt <luinctl orul s?ttlcDtent tutd ttlso pleacletl thut thcsc prop<,rtias /cll to tltc.slrurc of her husbantl. which sltt failrut to prot <, tlrc sttme, htnce thc ltluintil/'i.s entitlcd./ot. rccrtfication of c tri<,s o/ t.\.\A9 und A I 0.

9. By obser'ing as hereinabove, the trial Court came to conclusion that there is prope r and s, fficient evidencc in support of the plaintilf s contentions and that there is no reliable or acceptable evidcnce on behalf of the delendants either to disprove the contentions of the plaintifls or to prove the contentions of thc defendants and decreed the suit in part in t-avour of the plaintiffs. Aggricved by the sante, the defendants preferred an appeal.

10. The First Appctlate Court, being the final fact-linding Court, re_ appreciated ther cntire evidence and material available on recorcl and dismissed the Appeal with costs, vide judgment and decree, dated 7 SA.No ))) ol l011

13.09.2023. I l. The First Appellate Court in its.iudgment observed as hereunder:- (i) Elcn if ussunting.fbr u monrcnt for the sukc of discussiort that suit schedule propcrties I b 3, crtent ofsuil schcdule propert.t, No. I heing Ac.3-68 Ccnts in Sy.No. l/3 of Pochera village, ure thc self atquired prope ies of lute Yelti Naga Rcddy, plttintiffs I to 1 are cntitled /ir eqttul shurc alons \r'ith Yelti Ganga Reddy (husband o/ dc/cndunt No-l). It i.s not lhc cuse of plaintdfs and dafendunts thot Y?lti Nagu Reddy, exaa cd any Will Dced beque hing suit schcdule propcrties I to 3 in.[avour of anybody. lt is ctn udmitted.fit(t tlrut Yelti Naga Rcdlv died intestate. It is also an udmitted fact that /irst u,ilb of Yclri Naga Reddy hy namc Linga @) Lingamnu died y'hcn Gttngu Reddy u'as aged 2 years old arul Gangu Redd.y u'us bnntght up h.r matcrnal uncle and peyformed his nrurriuga y ith his orn duughter (defendmt No. l) and uftar marriuge Ganga Redd.y cume hack to Pochera village. Ganga Redd.y ulso drcd i lestate. Thcrefore. plaintilfs I to 4 and husband of defbndant No. I b1, name Gonga Reddy are entitled to l/5th sharc cuch. As alraudy stutcd, plnintill No.l died on 29.05.2017 and it uus rcported to court only on 15.02.202I. Wen parlics itt tt l)ortition sttit die, the rote o.f shtre fluctuatcs. ls (tlready stuled, it is the adnitted cose ol both sides lhul suit schedule propertics I to -J ure tht onccstrul propertic.s. F.ven b.y follou,ing the provisions o/' Hindtr Srccastion (lmendntcnt) Act. 2005, plaintilJs 2 to 4, who ure tht: daughtcrs of Yctti Naga Redd.v and hu-sband of de;fbndant by \ amc Yelti Gungu Redtlv ara erttitlcd|or l/{th sharc each in suit .schedula propcrtia:i I b 3 bcc,attse they u'c lha coparcenars. The I 5I |o -;11 rl 2D1 shure ol iure Gunga RctLll, hus to ha eErull.y distrihtrtt:tl uruong dc/bndunt' I to -1. Thtts. judgiru fi'om un, ttngla. sttit (lL.s(.t t.t,s lo hL, dctrccd itt purt iD .\o fur us it t'(,latc.\ to strit schctlttla pr()[)rrtia.t I ttt -1, s-11y111 ttf sttit schctlule propat t.y No.l haing At.-l-6,\ ( ett.s ttt S.v.No. l/3 , rl' Pochertt tillugt. (ii) rllttvg 111trr,t.t.,,n lcuds nt kr ttn<.lttfu l!ruI sltit .sthetlult, propcrtic.\ I to -1. t cnt o/'strit schedul<, prop<,rtv No. I ht,ittl ,,1.t,.3_ 68 Cent.s. tue thc a ccstrul Jtropertrcs und ulicr th<,dcctlh o/'latc Yclti Nagu Redtlv. plairtlifl.s und y(lti Gctttgu RetLly (hu.sbanci of de/cndant tVo.l). tho i.s son ol I'clti Nuga lk,dtl1t. .tttccct,l<d kt tlte suil .schedtrla pt (4)erti('.\. ls ulraad), \lated. (,r,an i./ ttrit .st.hcdulc properti?s ttre trcuted o.\.salIucquir<,d prop(rtics ol'lute )t,lti l\'aga Reddy pfutnti/fi und lute Gunga Rt,tldl, lt:n,c equul shore. A;; olready stdted, pluinti//,No.l diad on 29.05.2017 during pcndency ofsuit, but it ttus not hrought to tha oti(c of learnctl triul c.rturt. I hold thut plainn[/.'; ) to 4 und Yelri (iangu Redd_y (hu.slxtnd o/ defcnclunt ,\'o.llurc cntitlcd /ir ] /1th .s harL' rac h in.turt :tltethrlt properti(.\ I to -1, Gl( t ty' suit:thedttlc prop?rt.r No I bcin.q Ac.3 68 Ccnt.s und da/i'ndattt Nos.l to 3, r'lttt ttr<, thc lagul heir.; r,,f latc Yelli Cangu Reddt. ttrt' togcthu cnlitlcdJbr l/3rtl shtrc auch out of the shan o/ lutt' Yclti Gangu Redd.1,. Point No. I is uct ordingl.y utt.tner<rl i,t lttvt)ttt ul pltti tili; itt !rurt.

12. l-leard N4r V.Ravi Kiran llao, lcarned Senior Counsel representing 1\,1r V.Rohith, leamed counsel for the appellants on record and Mr S.Surender Reddy, learncd counsel for the respondents Pcrused the entile material available on record / t 9 LNA. J

51.N.,5)2 ol l0 )1

13. Leamed Senior counsel for the appellants contended that the trial Court as well as the Appellare Court lailed to adjudicate the issues involved in the partition suit and have misread the evidence on record and thus, came to erroneous conclusions. Leamed Senior counsel for the appellants further submitted that both the Courts have come to perverse findings against the appellants/defendants and erroneously decreed the suit. Hc further contended that the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court committed error in not considering Exs.Bl to 88, pahanies which are public documents, which clearly discloses that the name of plaintilf No. I /respondent No. l, was recorded as pattedar and possessor in respect of land fell to her share pursuant to oral partition entered about [5 years back i.e., 1995-96 during the life time of wife ol Yelti Naga Reddy and Yelti Ganga Reddy and thus, the impugned judgrnents are liable to be set-aside.

14. A perusal of record would disclose that the trial Courl as well as the First Appellate Couft have categorically held that no oral partition was aflected during the life timc of Yelti Naga Reddy and Yelti Canga Reddy and lurther held that plaintiffs, being the legal heils of late Yelti Naga Reddy and dct'endants being the legal heirs of ,/ l0 \ I \; -t-11 d/lri -'J late Ganga ILcddy are entitted lor share of the suit schcdule properties I to 3. In so lar as suit schedule property is conccrnecl, the delendant suit schedule properties are ancestlal properties and alter death of late Yelti Naga Rcddy, the plainrilf and tate Yelti Ganga ltcddy (husband of defenclant No. l) who is son ol late Yclti Naga Reddy, succeeded to suit schedule propefty. l'he First Appeltate Courr categorically held that sale decd bearing document No.3408 ol 2020 executed by delendant No.l in lavour of defendant No.4 is shanr and the same has been brought into existence and is not binding on thc plainriffs. 'fhe First Appellatc Court had also fu(her observed that during pendency of suit, plaintilf No. I expired on 29.05.2017. howeve r, the same was brought to the notice o1'the First Appellate Courl onlv on t5.02.2021 i.e.. after a period of foul years. ln the light of the above, this Court does not find any reason to intcrtere with the findings ol' the trial Courl as well as First Appellatc Coun.

15. In considered opinion of this Court, lcamed counsel for the appellants failed to raise any substantial question of larv to be decided by this Court in this Second Appeat. In I'act. all the glorrnds raised in

1.,\"-t, J SA No.i)2 of )0)4 this appeal are factual in nature and do not quatify as the substantial questions of law in terms of Section I 00 C. P.C

16. It is well settled pnncipte by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., this Court cannot interlere with the findings on facts ! i arrived at by the first Appeltate Court, which are based on proper I I appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record 17 Furtlrer, in Gurdev Kaur v. Kakit, tl'te Apex Court held that the High Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power under Section 100 C.P.C. is very limited and it can be exercised only where a substantial question of law is raised and falls for consideration

18. Having considered the entire material availaUle on record and the findings recordcd by thc trial Clourl as well as fi rst Appellate Court, this Court finds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said findings, undcr Section 100 C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by the appellants are factual in nature and no question '(2007) 1 Supreme Court C.ases 546 o l' law. mLlclt less l2 \.,1 ^o.5)2 ol )0:1 ( substantial qucstion of law arises, lor consideration in this Second Appeal l9 .Hcnce, the Second Appeal fails ancl the sanrc is accordingly dismissed at rhc stage oladrnission No costs. 20 Pending rniscellaneous applic.ltions, ifany, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR secSfioerrcen To,

1. The Court of the principal District Judge, Adilabad 2. The Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Adilabad 3. One CC to SRt V. ROHTTH Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to SRI S SURENDER REDDy,Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies Pcsd/gh I t l. ...-.1. ^'?. s ia Ir--. (' 28AtlBzffi HIGH COURT DATED:1 510412025 JUDGMENT SA.No.522 of 2024 DISMISSING THE SEOND APPEAL AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION g v\