The High Court dismissed a second appeal challenging preliminary decrees in a partition suit. The appellant failed to prove a gift deed for one property sector via revenue entries, and the other sector demanded valid devolution under Hindu law.
The Second Appeal was dismissed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
FRIDAY JHEqrWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSA® and TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
SECOND APPEAL NO: 286 OF 2024
Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC aggrieved against the Judgment and Decree dated 30/11/2023 made in AvS.No.lS of 2016, Court of the Senior Civil Judge. Puttur. Chittoor District; cdMprring the appeal and setting aside the Judgement and Decree dated ?3^;(i^2014 made in O.S. No. 214 of 2008, Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judgg^iittur. Chittoor District
Between:
P. Chengalarayulu, S/o Late f^iMinaiah Aged about 55 years, Occ Cultivation, Romo h w ^ Kodandaramapuram village, Durgasamudram Post, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Ghitfodf: District.
...APPELLANT / APPELLANT in AS No. 18 of 2016/ Defendant No.3 in OS 214 of 2008
V Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor district
...RESPONDENT herein ( RESPONDENTS in AS No. 18 of 2016/ DEFf NPANTS 1,2 and 4 in OS No 214 of 2008
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section SF’C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support: of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Judgment and Decree passed ini; A.S No. 18 of 2016 dated 30(11^2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge 1 Puttur, Chittoor District concurring the orders passed in O.S No. 214 of 2008 dated 23-06-2014 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur pending disposal of this Second Appeal
Counsel for the Appellants : SRI V. NITESH Counsel for the Respondents:
The Court made the following^
-•A t*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
SECOND APPEAL No.286 of 2024
Between:
P. Chengalarayulu, S/o.Late Krishnaiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Cultivation R/o.Kodandaramapuram Village, Durgasamudram Post, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Chittoor District.
...Appellant
Versus
P. Krishnamma, W/o.Late Krishnaiah, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.Kodandaramapuram Village, Durgasamudram Post, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Chittoor District & 3 others. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Sri N. Nitesh Counsel for Respondents
JUDGMENT
Dt:12 .07.2024
Heard Sri N. Nitesh, learned counsel for the appellant.
- Respondent No.1 herein had filed O.S.No.214 of 2008
before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, for partition of the suit
schedule property on the ground that the said propertyisancestral
2 RRR,J SA.No.286 of2024
property and self acquired properties of the father-in-lawandmother- in-law of the respondent, which requires to be partitioned among the family members of this couple.
- The case of the 1®* respondent was that late Sri Krishnaiah and Smt. Rosamma had five sons viz., late Krishnaiah, Subbaiah (D1), Gangaiah (D2) and Chengalarayulu (D3) and late Ramachandraiah. The 1®* respondent, who is the plaintiff was the wife of late Krishnaiah and the 4**^ defendant is the wife of late Ramachandraiah. The case of the 1®* respondent is that both late Krishnaiah and Smt. Rosamma had died intestate and all their sons succeeded to the estate of these two persons and subsequently, 1 St respondent and 4*^ respondent succeeded to the interest of their late husbands.
- The suit schedule property consists of two items. The 1 St item is Ac.0.45 cents of land in Sy.No.21/4 and the 2 nd item was Ac.0.22 cents of land in Sy.No.21/3 of Chuttu Gunta Rama Puram Village of Ramachandra Puram Mandal, Chittoor District.
- None of the defendants had raised any serious objection to the plaint except the 3^^^ defendant, who is the appellant herein.
- The defense of the 3^^^ defendant/appellant was thatthere was an earlier partition under which item No.2 of the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of the 4**^ defendant/4*'^ respondent
3
RRR,J SA.No.286 of 2024
herein. Further, item No.1 property was purchased inthenameofSmt. Rosamma who had then executed a deed of gift dated03.07.1987 in favour of the 3'^'^ defendant/appellant due to which, the said property cannot be included for partition between the living brothers and the widows of the deceased brothers.
- The trial Court passed a preliminary decree acceptingthe plea of the respondent herein, directing that the respondents 1 to 4 and the appellant would have 1/5‘^ share each in thesuitschedule property. This preliminary decree dated 23.06.2014 was challenged, by way of an appeal bearing A.S.No.18 of 2016, beforetheSeniorCivil Judge, Puttur. This appeal was dismissed on 30.11.2023. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the present Second Appeal has been preferred.
- Both the trial Court and the appellate Court had heldthat 4'*^ respondent, to whom item No.2 property had beenallotted in an earlier partition, had not made any such claim and had essentially conceded that the said property was available for partition.Thetrial Court and the appellate Court also held that the 3^^ defendant/appellant had not been able to discharge the burden of demonstratingthatthere was a deed of gift dated 03.07.1987, executed by late Smt. Rosama,in favour of the 3'''‘ defendant/appellant herein. Both the Courts also rejected the contention of the 3^^ defendant/appellanthereinthatthe
4
RRR,J SA.No.286 of 2024
revenue records had been mutated in favour of the 3'"^ defendant/appellant and the same would be sufficient to demonstrate his title over the land. Both the Courts held that mere revenue entries in the absence of any further supporting material, especially in partition suits, cannot be treated as proof of title.
- The findings of both the Courts are based on the admission of the parties to the litigation as far asitemNo.2ofthesuit schedule properties is concerned. As far as item No.1 is concerned, the admitted case on all sides is that the property had been purchased in the name of late Smt. Rosamma. In the absence of any deed of gift or will, the estate of late Smt. Rosamma would have to devolve in terms of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. The appellant herein, who claims that the said property had been gifted to him, by way of a deed of gift, failed to discharge the initial burden of proof to show that the property had been gifted to him. This burden could have been discharged only by producing the deed of gift under which the property
5
RRR,J SA.No.286 of 2024
is said to have been transferred to the appellant. This burden of proof had not been discharged as the document was not produced or recorded before the trial Court.
this Court.
- Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,shallstand
closed.
//true COPY//
Sd/- IW. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR
To,
SEC N OFFICER
Psr Cnr
PSR
HIGH COURT
DATED;! 2/07/2024
ORDER
SA.No.286 of 2024
4?
■y.o
U03 3 0 JUL 2024 STi
Cs
iir
DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether revenue record entries alone constitute proof of title to recover partitioned property?
Whether failure to produce the deed of gift discharges the burden of proof for claiming gifted property?
Is there any substantial question of law requiring determination in this second appeal?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P. Chengalarayulu
P. Krishnamma
Late Krishnaiah
Late Ramachandraiah
R. Raghunandan Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
