The High Court · 2025

Hanumanth Reddy (died) ,"r a*.O" Smt Laxmamma (died) per LRs Smt Anasuyamrna, W/o. I X::ix; 1yg,- * uo 0,, .7j" l;:'ffi ::,::#lff;: :;: : ; J;," ;'.,",,. Smt. Arunamma, Wo Janga Reddy age about 43 years, Occ- Agriculture E!:,ff[#! Reddv, S/o. Late Hanumanth Reddy, ase about 41 years, occ_ Dharma Reddy. S/o. Late -) Hanumanth Reddy, age abc ut 3g years, occ- Hgrrculture All are R/o l\4ucharlapally village, Midgir Mandar, Mahabubragar District IA NO: 10F 2018 ...Responrtents / Appellants petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circunrstanc;es stated rn the affidavit fired in support of the perition, the High court may bt: preased to grant stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Judgment and decre,-. in OS.No. 60 of 2008 dated o8-10-2015 0n the fire of the court of the r Addr st:nior civir Judge, Mahabubnagar' as modified in AS.No. 47 0f 2015 0n the fire of the r:)ourt of the Judge, Family Court_cum_Vlll Addl. Sessions Jud ocssrons Judge' Mahabubnagar' pending disposal ofthe above SA. Counsel for the Appellants in.SA & : xespondents in Cross Oblections 3..* a'ril*:fi:i.'":'ffJi,ij"* : The Court delivered the following Judgment : Sri Bhavani Sankar N sri K Muraridhar Reddy I I THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI SECOND APPENL NO .1 210F 2018 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS SR)N o.39322 of 2018 I JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal has been filed aggrieved by the decree and judgment daled 24.08-2017 in AS No.47 of 2015 passed by the Judge, Family Court -cum- Vlll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

2. The appellants are the defendant Nos'3 to 7 in the suit filed by the respondenUplaintiff seeking partition of schedule property i.e., Ac.37.09 situated at Urkonda village, Midjil Mandal' tVlahabubnagar District (hereinafter referred to as ,suit schedule property').

3. Pending the second appeal, the respondenVplaintiff filed objections vide Cross-Objections (SR) No.39322 of 2O1B

4. Heard Sri B.Bhavani Sankar, learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.3 to 7 and Sri K'Muralidhar Reddy' learned counsel for the respondenUplaintiff '

5.(a) Briefly stated the respondent's/plaintiff's case is that one Gajjal Reddy @ M.Gallalaiah was the absolute owner of the suit 2 :rr' schedule property and after his death, the property, devolved on his son C.Ram Reddy, after his death, the properly ceded on to his wife/Smt.Laxmamma (defendant No.2), son/Hanmanth Reddy (defendant No.1 ) and daughter/Kalamma (plaintiff).

5.(b) fhe plaintiff's case is that without her l<nowledge, her brother/defendant No.1 got mutated his name n the revenue records and refused to share the property, hence, .iled the suit for partition vlde OS No.60 of 2008 seeking 113,d pt671 in the suit schedule property. During pendency of the sui:, their mother Laxmamma/defendant No.2 passed away and the legal heirs i.e., wife and chilclren of defendant No.1 were brought on record as defendant Nos.3 to 7.

5.(c) The trial Court. after considering the matr:rials. passed preliminary decree hording that the plaintiff and rer rieceased brother are entifled equal share in the suit scherjule property. Challenging the judgment, defendant Nos.3 to Z i.e, wife and children of Hanmanth Reddy filed appeal yrde A.S No.47 of 2015. The Appellate Court having reconsidered the case facts and by referring to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the qropositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in prakash J and others v. Phutavati and othersl , held that upon the death of her father, succession opens and the daughter/plaintiff is entitled to a share along with the defendant No.1/father of defendant Nos'3 to 7 and also equal half on the notional share of their father' Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to 1l4th share in the property of her father. Whereby held that the plaintiff would be entitled to 1/4th share and defendant No.1 would be entitled to 3/4th share upon survivorship. Challenging this judgment, defendant Nos'3 to 7 preferred the Second APPeal.

6. Per contra, respondenVplaintiff submits that the Appellate Court had erred in properly accounting her share, filed Cross- objections. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos'3 to 7 would contend that the Appellate Court had erred in granting 1/4th share to the plaintiff and she is not entitled for any part in the suit schedule property for the reason that after the death of their grandfather, partition took place in the year 2003 and accordingly' the name of defendant No.1 was mutated in the revenue records' After five years, without any right, the plaintiff came up with the im for partition. The plaintiff's right for seeking partitron was 1 ntn zore supntME couRT 769 I i I t I I I ':. r. exhausted as she was n is not part of the joint ,u)u"'uo property. way back in the year 1 975 and she nily and has no right t. clairn share in the B. bieclions filed by the their appeal, the "' aopeai is rejected, ln regard to contentions in Cross_o responden lplaintiff , tn addition to the pleadin appellantS pleaded , har even if their claim ,n l" granting 1/4th shareto the praintiff is reasonar on proper consideration of facts afiong the plaintiff o,.r ho" ,-^.: such, the insistence sustainable. Furthern righfly considered the .j.:;;i:i;;::::;;"J"l,::;". es it was granted " - re-al'lotrnent of the shares "ro ,."_rrro,b her brother including the appeilants' As for half share in the p'operty is not tore' pleaded that the appellate court had p r.p.s,.ns n as Ure right of the schedule propely is; under an9 the appeal by dismissinr] the cross- dispute praye<lr", objections. ",,"*trjn-""^suit g. Learned counsel that after demise of thei ,:" ffi ;f [T:3::il:::"ff ,, ::.,."", the responde nUptaintiff wr>uld submit dev. ved .n '"'ou''nn this fact' ;uit claiming 1/3'd oftn" He contesred rha*he rrJ:,]"]];j her brother and mother. aaiBi-::: l 5 erred in considering the Amendment Act, 2005 in the light of the authority of lhe Prakash and others (cited supra). Further, he referred to subsequent judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court of the three Judge Bench between Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and othersz, wherein it has been clarified that the daughters' rights would be accrue from the date of birth as coparcener in the light of the Amendment Act, 2005. Therefore, laid claim for 113'd share and half share from the property of their mother, in effect, half share in the property. The appellate Court erred in considering these aspects in determining the right of the parties and the triar court was proper in dearing with the factuar position. As the praintiff/respondent is entifled for harf of the share in the suit schedule property, prayed for allowing the Cross_ objections. 1 0. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel and perused the materials on record.

11. The appellants/defendant Nos.3 to Z and respondenV plaintiff are in agreement as to the facts that the suit schedure property originally belong to one Gajjal Reddy @ M.Ga.fialaiah and after his death, devolution of property on their father/C.Ram Reddy The core contest of the respondenUplaintiff is that after the ' 2020 (s) ALI) 4e (SC) \ \ i 6 death of their father in 2OO1,she is equally entifled to the property along with her brother/defendant No.1 and her mother/defendant No.2. co nsidered the

12. On this Potnt, the Courts [s1evr/ 62y,. Amendment Act 2005 and its implication 13. ln this context, it is pertinent to note that the State of Andhra Pradesh the coparcener status of the girl chird over thel joint famiry property has been recognized by introducing Section 2g_A in the Hindu Succession (Andhra pradesh Amendment) .Act, j 986, which reads as follows: Section 2g-A. Equat rights of daughter in ccparcenery property: Notwithstanding anything contained in section 6 of this .Act_ (i) ln a Joint Hindt" Law, the daughter o, u','u'"' a coparcener in nu, o*),oo""ener son and have the property as she wourd ome inclusive of the right ,o ,uuu be subiect to tnu ".ri! respect theretou" rHu (ri) At a partition coparcenary property daughter the same sh governed by fulitakshara shall by birth bec<tme the same manner as the rights in the cop)rcenary had if she had been a son, im by survivorship; and shalt liabilities and disabttities in "o,i. rn such a Joint Hindu Fani'ly the shall be so divided as lo a/rot to a are as ls a otable lo as son ''no' '' "u' u 7 Provided that the share which a pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter would have got at the partition if he or she had been alive at the time of the partition shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter; Provided further that the share allotable to the pre- deceased chitd of a pre-deceased son or of a pre- deceased daughter, if such chitd had been alive at the time of the partition, shall be attotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son or of the pre-deceased daughter as the case may be: (iii) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitted by virtue of the provisions of clause (i) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shatt be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being dlsposed of by her by will or other testamentary disposition; (iv) Nothing in clause (ii) shalt apply to a daughter married prior to or to a partition which had been effected before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986

14. Therefore, by 1986, the State of Andhra Pradesh had recognized coparcenary status of the daughter from her birth in the joint family. Further, in the authority cited by respondenVdefendant in Vineeta Sharma (cited supra), the propositions that of eeparcenary status of the daughter has been fortified that the I , 8 rights will approved over the joint family property as coparcenery from the date of her birth even the birth is before or after the Amendment Act, 2005.

15. By the above read statutory positions, by 2001, tht; plaintiff is coparcener having equal right over the suit scheduler property along with her brother/defendant No..l . lt is admitt,:d far:t that the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 died intestirte. Therefore, if partition is opened, as per Section B(a) the property shiell equally devolve upon the plaintiff, her brother and mother rreing the heirs specified in class-l of the Schedure. This position sustains even if the contention of the defendant Nos.3 to 7 is takern as it is that partition was effected in the year 2003. Conr;equently, the contention as to the plaintiff was ousted from the jcint family, she has no right to claim interest over the suit schedule: property and the mutation in revenue records in favour of defendarrt No.',l stands legally unsustainable. To put it differenfly, mutations or entries in revenue records will not absolve the plaintiff s slance of coparcenery and her right in the suit schedule prolterty. ln that position, the disposition of the suit schedule propert\/ should have gone between the plaintiff and defendant Nos..l an<l 2, rvhereby, each of them are entifled lor l l3,d share of the :;uit schedule property I

16. lt is also clear by the record that the mother of the plaintiff passed away during pendency of the suit' ln such situation' the portion of the suit schedule property of their mother shall be opened for distribution among the legal heirs' Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 specifies that the succession of property shall be firstly upon sons and daughters and the husband' Accordingly, the share of defendant No'2/mother equally devolves on the plaintiff and defendant No'1' ln this position' the plaintiff anddefendantNo.lwouldbeentitledforequalshareinthesuit schedule property. The entitlement of appellanUdefendant Nos'3 to 7 would be within the share allotted to their predecessor in interest i.e., defendant No'1 ' lT.Thus,theaccountingoftheappellateCourtbywayof survivorship, which is clearly excluded by Section 6(3) of the Hindu SuccessionAct,lg56wouldstandimproperandliabletobeset aside. ln effect, the view of the trial Court is found sustainable as the same is within the statutory contemplations'

18. For the aforesaid, no merit is found in the contest of the appellanUdefendant Nos 3 to 7' As such' their Second Appeal fails on merit. Simultaneously, the claim of the respondenUplaintiff in l0 the Cross-objections deserves affirmation. Accordingly, the impugned decree calls for modification

19. In the result, the judgment of the appellatr: Cor.rrt vide A.S. No.47 of 2015 is set-aside and the judgment perssed by the trial Court in OS No.60 of 2008 is restored. Correspondingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed and the Cross;Objr:ctions are allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any, stands closed. To, //TRUE COPYII I;d/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR sEcTtoN dFrrcen i ' ,t^Lin',.lXno!oliru'{;"'n-"um-VlllAdditional sessions; Judsre, Mahabubnasar 2 fhe I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar 3. One CC to Sri Bhavani Sankar N, Advocate tOpUCl 4 One CC to Sri K Muralidhar Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 5 Two CD Copies Vtugh lii.-, -r' -- d l;il, {.,.',. a? ': , & HIGH COURT DATED:3011212024 I ."'-aa- /a- - J I,5 l2 tf0 2flfr / /,'+ ,) ; \,t 1", \: 7:. i) i JUDGMENT + COMMON DECREE ( 2 DRAFTS ) SA.No.121 of 2018 AND C ROSS-OBJ ECTIONS(SR). N o.39322 ot 2018 DISMISSING THE APPEAL & ALLOWTNG THE CROSS OBJECTTONS(SR) +,r{,'^ Yr( <#Fe IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY' THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI SECOND APPEAL NO:121 oF 2018 AND CROSS.O BJECTIONs-(sR ) NO: 393 220F 2018 SECON D APPEAL NO:12 10F 2018 Between: 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 Hanumanth ReddY (died) Per LRs Smt Laxmamma (died) Per LRs Smt.Anasuyamma,Wo.LateHanumanthReddy'agedabout6Tyears'Occ- Agriculture Venkat Narayan Reddy, S/o Late Hanumanth Reddy' aged about 45 years' Occ- Agriculture Smt. Arunamma, Wo, Janga Reddy aged about 43 years, occ. Agriculture Bheeshma Reddy, S/o. Late Hanumanth Reddy' aged about 41 years' Occ- Agriculture Dharma Reddy, S/o Late Hanumanth Reddy' aged about 39 years' Occ- Ag ricultu re All are R/o. Mucharlapally village' Midgil Mandal' Mahabubnagar Dist' ...Appellants / Appellants / Defendants AND Smt. Kalamma, W/o' Krishna Reddy, aged. about 56 years, Occ- Agriculture' Hi;: v&:ano ; Vl r i, g., V. r J, no i lrrt 6 n a"a t' t\/ a h a b u b n a s a r D i st ...Respondent / Respondent / Plaintiff CROSS-O BJECTION S (SRl NO: 39322 oF 2018 Between: smt. Kalamma. w/o. Krishna Reddy, aged. about 56 vears occ- Agriculture' R/o. Veldanda virrage' v";ld;ni; M;;a;i Mahabubnbgar District ...Petitioner /"Cross Objector / Respondent

1. Hanumanth ReddY (died) Per LRs 2. Smt Laxmamma (died) Per LRs AND

3. Smt. Anasuyamma, Wo. Late Hanumanth Reddy, age about ()7 years . Reddy, S/o Late Hanumanth Reddy, ase about 45 years, X::lfl,rlS;ayan

5. Smt. Arunamma, W/o. Janga Reddy age about 43 years Occ. Agriculture t Rerldv s/o Late Hanumanth Reddy. age ;rbout 4i years, occ- s/o Late Hanumanth Reddv, age ar)out 39 years, occ- EXm|]n: ' R|,.ffililr5"ddv' .All are R/o. Mucharlapally village, Midgil Mandal, Mahabr- bnagar District ...Respondents / Appellants Appeal under Section 100 of CpC and Memorandum rf Cross Objections under section 5 0f Limitation Act against the Judgment ar d Decree made in A S No47 0f 2015 dated 24-0g-20'17 0n the fire of the court cf the Judge, Fam,ry court-cum-vfl Additionar sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed in o.S.No.60 0f 2oo'dated 08-10-2015 0n the fire of the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. ORDER: This appeal and Cross Objections coming on for hearing and rrpon perusing the grounds of appear and cross objections the Judgment and L)ecree of the Lower court and the materiar papers in the case and upon hearing th: arguments of Sri Bhavani sankar N, Advocate for the Apperants in sA and Respondents in cross objections and of sri K .rrruraridhar Reddy, Advocate for the Resrondent in SA and Cross Objector in Cross Objections. , This Court doth Order and decree as follows:- '1 . That the Second Appeal be and hereby is dismissed; 2. That the Cross-Objectrons be and hereby are allowed; 3. That the Judgment of the Appellate Court vide A.S.No.47 of 2015 be and hereby is set-aside; and

4. That the Judgment passed by the Trial Court in O,S.No.60 of 2018 be and hereby is restored; //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR 0' SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J The Judge, Family Court-cum-Vlll Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar The I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar Two CD Copies VA/ghw HIGH COURT DATED:3011212024 COMMON DECREE SA.No.I21 ot 2018 AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS(SR).N o.39322 of ll01 8 DISMISSING THE APPEAL & ALLOWTNG THE CROSS OBJECTTONS(SiR) 6 rdReb Xtr IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD IVIONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI SECOND APPEAL NO: 1 21 oF 2018 AND CROSS-O BJE CTIONS (SR} NO: 393220F 201A SECOND APPEAL NO: 21 0F 2018 1 Between: Agriculture

1. Hanumanth ReddY (died) Per LRs 2. Smt Laxmamma (died) Per LRs 3. Smt. Anasuyamma, Wo Late Hanumanth Reddy' aged about 67 years' 4. Venkat Narayan Reddy, S/o Late Hanumanth Reddy' aged about 45 years' 5. Smt. Arunamma, Wo. Janga Reddy aged about 43 years' Occ- Agriculture 6. Bheeshma Reddy, S/o- Late Hanumanth Reddy' aged about 41 years' Occ- 7. Dharma Reddy, S/o. Late Hanumanth Reddy' aged about 39 years' Occ- Occ- Agriculture Agriculture Occ- Agriculture Rtt are R/o. Mucharlapally village, Midgil Mandal' Mahabubnagar Dist' ...Appellants / Appellants / Defendants AND Rni,xFs[f vY,l?{\}'Ji[3"T:1$Le',tif"i%,J,"'"[:raff "-Agricurture' ...Respondent / Respondent / Plaintiff CROSS.OBJECTIONS (SR) NO: 3932 20F 2018 Between: Smt. Kalamma, W/o. Krishna Reddy, aged- about 56 years, occ-,Agriculture, Fi/o. Veldanda virrage,'t-;ldinoi tt'tLhoit' Mahabubnagar District ...Petitioner / Cross Objector / Respondent 't. Hanumanth ReddY (died) Per LRs 2. Smt Laxmamma (died) Per LRs AND Occ- Agriculture

3. Smt. Anasuyamma, W/o, Late Hanumanth Reddy, age about 67 years 4. Venkat Naravan Reddy, S/o. Late Hanumanth Reddy, age about 45 years, 5. Smt. Arunamma, Wo. Janga Reddy age about 43 years, Occ- Agriculture 6. Bheeshma Reddy, S/o. Late Hanumanth Reddy, age :rbout 41 years, Occ_ 7. Dharma Reddv. Sio. Late Hanumanth Reddy, age alout 39 years, Occ- Agriculture All are Rl/o. Mucharrapaily viilage, Midgir Mandar, Mahabubnagar District Agriculture ...Respondents / Appellants Appeal under Section 100 of cpc and Memorandum of cross objections under section 5 0f Limitation Act against the Judgment a,d Decree made in A.s.No.47 of 2015 dated 24-08-2017 on the fire of the court.f the Judle, Famiry court-cum-vrrr Additionar Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, p-efened against the Judgment and Decree passed in o.S.No.60 of 2008 dated 0B-10-201 s on the fire of the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. ORDER: This appeal and Cross Objections coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appear and cross objections the Judgment and r)ecree of the Lower court and the materiar papers in the case and upon hearing ttre arguments of Sri Bhavani sankar N, Advocate for the Appeflants in sA and Rer;pondents in cross objections and of sri K Muraridhar Reddy, Advocate for the Rer;pondent in sA and Cross Objector in Cross Objections. This Court doth Order and decree as follows:_

1. That the Second Appeal be and hereby is dismissed; 2. Tnilthe Cross-Objections be and hereby are allowed; 3- That the Judgment of the Appellate court vide A.s.No.47 of 2015 be and hereby is set-aside; and

4. That the Judgment passed by the Trial court in o.S.No.60 of 2008 be and hereby is restored; Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGTSTRAR NOTE : As per the advocate letter daled 17-OZ_ZOZS, the typographical error occurred in the suit numberis conected as "O.S.No.60 of 200g" instead of "O.S.No.60 of 20'18". This Amended Common Decree substitutes the earlier Common Decree despatched on 12-o2-2025. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, ECTION OFFICER 1. The Judge, Family Court-cum_Vlll Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar 2. The I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar 3. Two CD Copies VA/sh F" I I I I l i I I I I I HIGH COURT DATED: 3011212024 17102t2025 AMENDED COMMON DECREE SA.No.121 of 2018 AND CROSS-OBJ ECTIO NS(SR). N o.39322 oi 201 B DISMISSING THE APPEAL & ALLOWTNG rHE CROSS OBJECTTONS(SR)

5..d4 w -afl-*er