The High Court · 2025

Padakanti Sukunavva nl9. wife, R/o 3- 1 -252, puranipet, LagtiaiTown-a"nJ ff,"""Oif Jagtial District Padakanti Radhavva. W/o Lingaiah Aged about 71 years. Occ. House wife R/o 1 -3-45. Ma ilaiat Vilage and'Ma"orijj'gtiiiDLi,ll Rudrolr @ Kammari Subha-dra. W/o Late Laxmi Rajam, aged about 51 vears occ House wire. R/o r s_+s. MarLLr Vit;;;;;'rfil;i;r i;;t"ibJ.ti.t,..' - Rudro;i @ Kammari Rr-.g|q! . S/o Late laxmi Rajam, aged about 33 years occ Buslness, R/o 1_3-45, nruiriirl Vil-Jj! l-,i,i'r,rriril, Jasriat District Rudroji @ Kamamri Raiaiah,. S/o Laxmipathi. aged about 5.1 years. Occ. Business. R/o 1-3-4. Maliaiat Virr"geirj tui;;rl irr"gii.r oirt,t.t Kothapally Tharavva. Wo Bramaaih, aged about 56 years, Occ. Housewife. R t o 1 6 - 1 _32 / b a, Ma I I ia r vi I la ge a n JMa Maddepally laxmi. Wo Shankaraiah, Aged about 46 years. Occ. Housewrfe. Rlo 1 43t2. Narsingnapur Viuage, .Jagtiaiiil;;;; irirrnorl, Jagtiat District Kodumunja Ramadevi. Wo Suresh aged about 36 years,Occ. Housewife. R/o 4-6-462. Kodurupaka Vilase, BoinipJily i/;;;;i, S,rr;[a Districr Ungarala Ganesh. S/o Raiaiah,.Aged about 31years. Occ. Labour Rlo 1_3_47. Near Hanuman tempte MdliaI Vittjg" r.Jlar-rda-i.t'igiar oistrict Lriiil] oi.trt"t "o"j'i '10. Ungarala surrender, S/o Ra.jaiah Aged about 27 years, Occ. Labour R/o 1-3- 48,-Near Hanuman temple Mallial Village and Mandal, Jagtial District

11. Ungarala Sunrtha. Wo LaxmiRajam, aged about 34 years, Occ H999ewif9 R/o 1-3-49, Near Hanuman temple, Mallial Village and Mandal, Jagtial District. l2.Aluwala Suresh, S/o Rayamallu, Aged about 5'1 years, Occ. Business, R/o 14- 2-113, Mallial Village and Mandal, Jagtial District l3.Chitvuru Gangu. Wo Kishan,Aged about 51 years , occ. Housewife, Rlo 2-2' 46, Mallial Village and Mandal Jagtial District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition undet Order 5 Rule 20 R/w 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 direct the respondents not to change the nature of the suit schedule property Iand Sy.No. 94418 to an exten of Ac. 0-16 gts situated at Mallial Shivar of Mallial Mandal, Jagtial district pending disposal of the Second appeal- Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A. Mallesham Counsel for the Respondents: The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: I HON'BLE SRI.JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEAL No.42 of2O25 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 3O.08.2024, passed in A.S.No. 16 of 2022 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge at Jagitial, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree d,ated 22.06.2022 passed by Principal Junior Civii Judge, Jagitial, in O.S.No.32 of 2016, was confirmed, the present Second Appeal is filed.

2. The appellant is plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The facts of the case in brief, which led to filing of the present second appeal, are that plaintiff filed suit before the trial Court vide O.S.No.32 of 2016 under Section 25 rlw Order IV and VII of CPC, 1908 against the defendants for partition and separate possession of land to an extent of Ac.0.16 guntas bearing Survey No.944/B situated at Mallial village by allotting 1/ 18tn share in favour of plaintiff, the plaintiff is the son of late Rudroji @ Kammarin Laxmipathi and grandson of late Rudroji @ Kammari Chinna Lingaiah and defendant Nos. 1 to 1 1 are the coparcenars of Hindu Joint Family members governed by Mithakshara School of Law. It is averred that grandfather of plaintiff i.e., Kammari Chinna Lingaiah was the owner of land -) LNA, J S.A-n*o.42 of 2025 bearing sun'ey No.944/B to an extent of Ac.O' l6 guntas situated at Mallia-l village and his name is appearing as pattedar in revenue records and he died log ago leaving behind him, his three sons viz., Rudroji (rQ KammariBrahmaiah, Rudroji (@ Kammari Ramaiah and Rudroji @ Kammarilaxmipathi and one daughter i.e, Rudroji (a' KammariRathawa; that lst son of Kammari Chinna Lingaiah, KammariBrahmaiah died about 30 years back leaving behind the defendant No. 1, 2^d son Kammari Ramaiah also died about 3O years back leaving behind one son Kammari Laxmi Rajam and defendant No.2, further the said Kammari Laxmi Rdjam died leaving behind defendant Nos.3 and 4 and 3'd son Kammarilaxmipathi died about 14 years ago le.rving behind two sons plaintiff herein and defendant No.S and four daughters i.e., one UngarlaSurawa and defendant Nos.6 to 8, further the said UngarlaSuravva died leaving behind defendant Nos.9 and 10 and husbald of defendant No. 1 1, who also died.

4. It is further contended that defendant No.l being legal heir of late Rudroj i @) KammariBrahmaiah having I / 3'd share, defendant Nos.2 to 4 being legal heir of Rudroji 1@ Kammari Ramaiah having 1/3ra share and the plaintiff, defendant Nos.S to 1l being legal heirs of late Rudroji @ Kammari Laxmipathi are having 1/3r.t share together in the suit schedule land; that after death of his grandfather Rudroji @ Kammari Chinna Lingaiah, father of plaintiff and his paternal uncle gave the suit land to ) ) \ 3 T,NA, J S.A.No.42 oI2025 defendant Nos.12 and 13 on crop share lease basis ior two years, then after the father of plaintiff and his paternal uncie use to cultivate the suit land till their death and taking advantage of their name in pahani patrikas, the defendant Nos.12 and 13 illegally cultivating the suit land without obtaining further lease. In the month of December, 2Ol4 tl:e plaintilf demanded delendant Nos. 12 and 13 to give crop share but they refused the same and denied the title of plaintiff as such the plaintiff approached defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in the month ofJune, 2015 and demanded for partition and separate possession of suit land and ton allot 1/3'd share to the plaintilf and defendant Nos.S to 11 being share of late Rudrojin @ Kammari Laxmipathi, but defendant Nos. 1 to 4 refused the same and hence plaintilf approached elders of village on 15.01.2016 and requested to conduct a panchayath to settle the issue but they suggested to approach the Court. Hence, the suit.

5. In the written statement filed by the defendant No. 12 the averments made in the plaint are denied and contended that he is the owner and possessor of suit schedule property bearing survey No.944 /B to an extent of Ac.O. 16 guntas situated at Mallialshivar and the same was purchased by defendant No. 12 from Kammari Rajaiah, Kammari Laxmirajam and Kammari Ramalaxmi through a registered sale deed bearing Document No.3O69/1979 dated

03.09.1979 for a valid consideration and since then he is in .i LNA, J S.A.No.42 of 2025 peaceful possession and enjoyment over the same. He also submits that the documents are clearly showing that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the same and at the time of purchasing the suit land, the suit land stands in the name of Late Kammari Chinna Lingaiah who died leaving behind his sons KammariRa.iaiah, Kammari Laxmi Rajam and his wife Kammari Rama Laxmi as legal heirs. Delendant No.12 further submits that vendors of defendant No.12 sold the suit land to him for their legal necessities for a valid consideration on 03.O9.1979 and since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the same, as. such the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 1 1 are having no right over the suit schedule property. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

6. To substantiate the case, piaintiff himself cxamined as P.W.1 and Exs.A. 1 to A.22 are marked. On behalf ol defendants, defendant No. 12 examined as D.W. 1 and got marked Exs.B. 1 to

8.19.

7. The trial Court, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, dismissed the suit vide its judgment dated 22.06.2022 by observing that Ex.B. I which clearly establishes that defendant No.12 purchased the suit schedule property through registered sale deed and the sale deed stands good until the same is challenged and declared as invalid by any competent Court of law ) ) 1 r 5 I-NA, J S.A.No.42 of 2025 and aiso held that the plaintiff in this case did not take any steps to challenge Ex.B.l sale deed in favour of defendant No. 12 and thus, held that plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of partition since the plaintiff failed to prove the suit schedule property is joint family property of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 1 1 and that they are in joint possession ol the suit property.

8. The trial Court further observed as under: i. In the case in hand initial burden lies on the plaintiff to establish that suit propeftg is joint family propertg. The plaintiff in this case though led euidence is not sufficient to proue his case thot suit property is joint family propertg as his euidence duing cross examination is quiet contrary to his pleadings in the plaint- From the mere assertion of plaintiJf that him.self and defendant l[os. ] to 1 1 corlstitute Joint Hindu Famtlg cannot be established uhen defendant denies the said fact and the euidence led bg plaintiff is not sufficient to proue the aforestated fact of joint familg propertg. Thus in uietu of aforesaid discussion, plaintiff failed to proue that suit schedule propert! is joint family property of himself along uith defendant Nos. 1 to 1 7. ii- Plaintiff in thi.s case failed to shotl that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.l to 11 constitute coporcenary Hindu Joint Family and further plaintiff also failed to proue that suit schedule propertA is their joint family propertg. As defendant No.12 is successful in rebutting tlle cose of the plaintiff by I 6 LNA, J S.A.No.42 of 2025 submitting oral and doatmentary euidence in support of the defence taken bg defend.ant No.12 by shouing Ex.B.l sale deed that suit schedule propertA u.tas purchased bg him long back in the year 1979. Further pahanies Dx.B.2 to 8.19 also sholu the possession of defendant No.12 ouer th.e suit schedule propertA. From this it is clear that suit schedule propeftA is purchased. bg defendant No.12 uide Ex.B.7 registered sale deed Doanment No.3O69/ 1979. The plaintiff fled the present suit in the gear 2O16 but houeuer, plaintdf di not take anA steps chttllenging Ex. B- 7 regi.stered sale deed. standing in the name of defendant No.12, ' u.hich u.)as executed in the year 1979." 9 On appeal being filed, the first Appeliate Court, being the Iinal fact-fir:rdir-rg Court, re-appreciated the entire evidence and the material available on record and dismissed the appeal, vide judgment dated 3O.O8.2O24 and observed as under "lt is oueruhelminglg clear that, plaintiff failed to proue establish seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule propertA, on the other hand defendant is able to proue under Exs.B.l to 8.19 placed by all the releuant doatments as he purchased fron his grandfather. The appellant-plaintifJ' has failed to proue his sought for partition and separate possession ouer suit schedule property cannot claimed relief. It is rightlg pointed out bg the triql Court in the impugned judgment tlnt the appellant-plaintiff ho,s not I 7 L,\A..l S.A.No.42 oj 2025 explained an!:lluhere in his euidence to shotl that as on dutc of the Jiling of the suit, the suil property is undiuicled and coparcenars uf Hind.u Joint Fctm.ily members gouerned bg Mitaksh,ara School of Lau-t-" l0 The first appeilate Court furlher observed that the claim of plaintiff seems to be hypothetical and speculative and without establishing the share of the plaintiff. Though the father of the plaintiff sold the suit schedule property lo defendant No.12, knowingly the plaintilf approached the Court with unclean hands, claiming to be grandson of Kammari Chinna Lingaiah.

11. The first appellate Court further observed that the trial Court, has dealt rvith all the issues in detail by giving sound reasoning for its conclusions and also observed that there is absolutely no need to interfere with the impugned judgment of thc trial Court, as thc same is on correct lincs and accordingly, confirmed the order of the trial Court. Hence thc Second Appeal.

12. Heard Sri A.Mallesham, learned counsel for the appellant.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial Court dismissed the suit without proper appreciation of the evidence and the first Appellate Court also committed an crror in confirming the order passed b1, the trial Court.

14. A perusal of the record disclose that the suit property belonged to Kammari Chinna Lingaiah (grand father of plaintiff) -/ and after his death, his lega1 heir alienated the suit property in I 8 L\',4, J .t-.1- No.42 oJ 2025 favour ol d,.;t'endant No. l2 vide registered sale deed bearing Document No.3069 of 1979 dated O3.O9.I979, u'here as, the suit for partition u as filed by the plaintilf in the year 201 (r. F urlher, rtrc lirst er])pcll.Lte Court specifically obscrvcd that Lh'r plain tiff failecl to proi,c lhat the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 1l are coparcenars an<1 they constitute Hindu Joint Famiiv ar-rcl that the suit propertl is joint family property. The trial Court ::s r'r'e1l as first appe liate Court have held that defendant No. 12 has been ir: continuotrs possession from the date of purchast: i.e ., tiom

03.09.1979 rrnd that the plaintiff lailed to prorre his; claim and ,' . . ,.':ri,rlriJ is lrol entitled lor partition of suit land. lJ. Thc icarncd counsel lor appellar-rt lailecl ro raise at'r1' substantial (lucstion of lau, to be decided by this Court in this Second Appczrl. In fact, all the grounds raised in this atppeal are factual in lralurc and do not qualtfy as the substantial question oi lau,in terms r:)1-Section 100 C.P.C. , r ; ,: r:11 seLtled principle by a catena of deci:;rons oi tire Apex Court lhal in the Second Appeal filed undcr Scction 100 C.P.C., Lhis rJourl cannot inlerfere with the corlcl-trrenL finrJings on facts arrived by the Courts below, which are berse,l on propcr appreciation of thc oral and documentary evidence on record. r I () LNA, J S.A.No.42 of 2025

17. Further, ln Gurdeo Kaur v, Kakil, the 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 rdised and fell for consideration.

18. Having considered the entire material available on record and the findings recorded by the triai Court as well as the first Appellate Court, this Court hnds no ground or reason warranting interference with the said concurrent findings, under Section 100 C.P.C. Moreover, the grounds raised by the respondents are factual in nature and no question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal.

19. Hence, the Second Appeal faiis and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed- I L (2oot) 5uTrene GurL 5e9 f To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. KRISHNA KUMAR D PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER 1 1 . The I Additional District Judge at Jagtial 2. The Principal Junior Civil Judge at Jagtial. 3. One CC to Sri A. Mallesham Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies VH/gh +* HIGH COURT DATED: 31101t2025 JUDGMENT SA.No.42 of 2025 l , , , I I DISMISSING THE APPEAL AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION @ 2 % L1 HE sIe ) A 1 1/ APfr lffi e 1- J.: -9 \ .!,cr-1.C ,