Dismissed

Nayakula Mekala Bommakka v. Nayakula Mekala Thippamma

Telangana HC7 Aug 2012SA/516/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Second Appeal, arising from a partition suit where defendants contested joint ownership and prior partition, was dismissed at the admission stage. The judgment noted that substantial questions of law were not warranted as the trial court based its findings on revenue records, sale deeds, and support from other heirs regarding joint ownership.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed at the stage of admission; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Nayakula Mekala Bommakka Vs Nayakula Mekala Thippamma — Partition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶2

S.A.No.516 of 2011

¶3

J U D G M E N T:

¶4

The defendants 1,4 and 5 in O.S.No.128 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur (for short ‘the trial Court’), are the appellants herein. The suit was one filed for partition of the schedule properties alleging that one N.M.Rajaiah and N.M.Palaiah are the brothers and sons of Thippaiah. The plaintiff is the daughter of Rajaiah. It was pleaded that Rajaiah and Palaiah have purchased the schedule properties jointly. Rajaiah died in the year 1993 and Palaiah died in the year 1997. The defendants are the legal heirs of Palaiah. When the plaintiff has demanded for partition of her half share, the defendants 1,4 and 5 did not co-operate. The defendants 1,4 and 5 contended that the schedule properties are not the joint properties of Rajaiah and Palaiah and a partition has taken place long time back and the plaintiff is not entitled to a share. But however the defendants 2,3 and 6 who are also the children of Palaiah supported the claim of the plaintiff with regard to her right of partition.

¶5

2. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has negatived the contention of the appellants and passed the decree for partition.

¶6

3. As against that, A.S.No.10 of 2007 was preferred to the Court of III Additional District Judge(FTC), Anantapur, which was also dismissed.

¶7

4. Aggrieved by that, this second appeal is sought to be presented.

¶8

5. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the suit schedule

¶9

properties are the joint properties of her father and her father’s brother Palaiah. On the other hand, it is the contention of the contesting

¶10

appellants herein that the properties are the exclusive properties of their father and the plaintiff is not entitled for any partition of the property.

¶11

6. The trial Court has considered the evidence on both sides and found that the claim of the appellants that the properties are the self acquired properties of Palaiah is not true. Earlier partition was also not believed. Furthermore, the children of Palaiah, who are defendants 2,3 and 6 also supported the claim of the plaintiff about the jointness and also the right of partition. The revenue records and other material clearly discloses the jointness of the properties and even in 1993 the same entries were found in the revenue records. Much of the evidence produced by the defendants is not convincing and by giving sufficient reasons, the trial Court has found that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for partition. The documents, which are the registered sale deeds Exs.A.1 to A.3, clearly shows that the properties were purchased by the brothers jointly. The plea of division and partition between Rajaiah and Palaiah was not established. The plea of the appellants is therefore not true and it is to be held that the property is liable for partition and there is no substantial question of law warranting the appeal to be admitted.

¶12

7. Accordingly the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Second Appeal shall stand closed.

¶13

07.08.2012 vjl

¶14

_________________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

Nayakula Mekala Bommakka v. Nayakula Mekala Thippamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nayakula Mekala Bommakka v. Nayakula Mekala Thippamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. Obi Reddy Vs Saritha Reddy

Smt.Golla Subhashini Vs Smt.Pasila Ssri Nagu

Gogineni Sarveswara rao S/o. Lakshmi Narayana Vs Kadiyala Indira Devi W/o. Late K.Krishna Prasada Rao

Atluri Siva Rama Prasad Vs Koripalli Ramakrishna

Anumula Sunitha Reddy Vs Badrinarayana

Nandyalam Srinivasan Vs a.M.Mohan Kumar