Dismissed

Narsamma (Died), Medak Dist and Two Others v. Smt.Sumitramma, Bidhar Dist and Fifteen Others

Telangana HC22 Jan 2024SA/1294/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed second appeal in partition suit. Court upheld trial court's finding that revenue records did not confer title and lack of evidence regarding oral partition between co-heirs mentioned in Ex.B14 was fatal. Lower courts' appreciation of evidence was sustained.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed confirming judgment dated 09-08-2017 and decree dated 19-01-2015. No order as to costs.

Narsamma (Died), Medak Dist and Two Others Vs Smt.Sumitramma… — Partition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

I a ,

¶2

[³²¹⁵ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

¶7

SECOND APPEAL NO: 1294 OF 2017

¶8

Appeal under section^'100 of CPC against orders aggrieved by the judgment and decree Dated 9-08-2017 in A.S.No. 14 of 2015 on the file of the Judge Family Court-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, Medak District. Preferred again$the^judgment and decree Dated 19-01-2015 passed in O.S. No. 14 of 2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, Medak District

¶9

Between:

¶10

1- Narsamma (Died per L.Rs)

¶11

Babu, S/o Late Mollappa, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Agircutlure,

¶12

Shiromani, S/o Late tvlallappa, Aged about 50 years, Occ Church Pastor,

¶13

All R/ o Magudampally, Zaheerabad Mandal, tr4edak District.

¶14

.-.APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/OEFENDANTS 15, 16 & 17

¶15

AND

¶16

Smt. Sumitramma, D/o Late O.Yellappa, Aged about 56 years, Occ Household, R/o Barrur Village, Bidhar District

¶17

Smt. l/ariamma, D/0 Late O.Yellappa, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Teacher, R/o Borabanda, Hyderabad.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶19

Smt. Shakuntala Devadas W/o Late O.Devadas, Aged about 64 years, Occ: Rtd. Nurse, R/o Anand Nagar Colony, Pastapur, Zaheerabad, Medak District.

¶20

Smt. Sabitha Rani D/o Late O. Devadas, Aged about 42 yea$, Occ: School Teacher, Ryo N,4etodist Rural High School, Zaheerabad, Medak District.

¶21

Smt. Sunith Rani, D/o Late O.Devadas, Aged about 64 years, Occ: Rtd. Nurse, RL/o Anand Nagar, Pastapur, Zaheerbad, Medak Distrit.

¶22

Smt. Saritha, D/o Late O.Devadas, Aged about 31 years, Occ: School Teacher, R/o Anand Nagar, Pastapur, Zaheerbad, Medak District.

¶23

II l f It: ir ct I { tT t f I f

¶24

¶25

I I I I i :

¶26

Smt. Sangeetha D/o L_at9 O.Devdas, Aged about 29 years, Occ: School Teacher, Rl/o Christian Colony, Zaheerabad,

¶27

O. Sandeep S/o Late O. Devadas, Aged about 26 years, Occ. Student, Rt/o Anand Nagar Colony, Pastapu r, Zaheer abad, Medak'Dis kict.

¶28

O. Kantha, D/o O. Yellappa, Aged about 60 years, Oc,6; p16. Teacher, R/o H.No. 11-5-156/1, Red Hi s, Hyderabd.

¶29

O. Samuel S/o Late O.Yellappa, Aged about 57 years, Occ: Agriculture, R:/o Ir,4ogudampally Vi age, Zaheerabad; Medak Distriit.

¶30

1^'1 . O. Chandramma Wo Late Veeraswamy, Aged about 64 years, Occ: Household, Rt/o Borabanda, Hyderabad.

¶31

O. Chitti, S/o Late Veeraswamy, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Labour, Rt/o Borabanda, Hyderabad.

¶32

13.O- Vijay Kumar S/o Lale Veeraswamy, ASed about 33 years, Occ: Labour, R/o Borabanda, Hyderabad.

¶33

Smt.Shakuntala, Dlo Lgtg O. Veeraswamy, Aged about 44 years, Occ Household, Rl/o Edulapally Village, Zaheerabad.^-

¶34

O Sunil, S/o Late Veeraswamy, Aged about 29 year:;, Occ Labour, R/o Borabanda, Hyderabad.

¶35

'16. Smt. lndira, W/o Late David, Aged about 33 years, Ry o Malakpet, Hyderabad.

¶36

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶37

Counsel for the Appeltants: SRl. S. CHALAPATHI RAO

¶38

Counsel for the Respondentsl&2: SRl. B. SHANKER

¶39

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

i I I I n

I T : ,t $i E l

1 '; H I I ii I !

$tiI

FFrffi

THII I{ONOURAI}LE DR.JUSTTCT]^(;. RADHA RANI

¶47

SIICOND APPEAL No.l294 ot20t7

¶48

.IUD(;MI,,N'I

¶49

-['[tis :icc,.rtrd appeal is filcd by thc appellants-def-endant 5,,. 1-r (died rcprcsrjntod by his lcgal tcpresenrativcs) deil.ndants l6 and l7 aggrievcd by the iuig-rr:cni^{rrrrd decrcc datcd 09.08.2017passed in A.S.No.l4} of 201-5 on rhc file o{ rh,, .ltrig.c. []arniir Court-,:tul-Vll r\ddirional Disrricr & Sessions .ludge, Su rr1l.r lc,-klr. i{t-dak [.)istrict, corrfirnring the judgrnent and dccrce dated 19.(ji -l() l5 Prsscri in O.S,No. l4 ot-2009 on thc file o1'thi: Sc'nior Civil .lLrdge, ./.ulrcii i rlrrrrl. Vlccliil< l)istrict

¶50

-1.^{'l he respondt:nts} I^{and 2 -} plaintilli^{fllcd thc} suit ltrl^par-tition ol' r:.r'lcullir,ll Iunds i.c.. trgrictrltulal land in Sy.No. Il3 adrneesr-rrlrrg \c.5-2ti gts. 'ilti:rtt^{ilrrt ,loqrrc!a,npally village,ilahccLabad Mandal,lr'lctlal: [)istrictand} lr:rli,:,rlttrral land irr Sy.No.289/B, adtneasuring .,\c.l l-18 srs situatcd at i,iogrrriarrrpally village, Zatreerabad mandal, Mcdak districL ('A' and'B srhcilu l- lr'opcrt ics )

¶51

l'h,: pa.r'tics are hereinaitcrr referled as arralcd hclirc thc lrial r:ourt

¶52

i Ihc pll intilli are dar,rghte'rs ol' latc O. \i'll:rppir and Srnt. l.inr,.,,i,ri;r.,. ', 1:cr Ihc plrrintilt's, \tllappa clicd on 0j.()7.l9Sl l,-.aring h,:hind Itinr llrr.ce sc,rrs :rorl thrce daughtets zrs his: lcgll rclrrr:scntirtivc:;. lht tlrsr son ol

¶53

: "q

¶54

¶55

l)r.(i Rli, J sa 1291 2011

¶56

Yellappa, by name, O. Devadas clied on 24.06. 1985 leaving rehind hirn his^lcgal representatives - dcfendants I to 6 and thc secoi-rd son of^Ycllappa was O. Vceraswarny, rvho died on 20.02.2002 and his legal rt:presentatives were delendants 9 to 14 and the third son ol Yellappa^.'vas O. Satnuel^(det-endant No.S) and the elder daughtel ol'-Ycllappa uas iv{iss O. Karrtha^{(dcf-endantNo.7)} The plaintiffs were the second and third daugliters c-,1'O. Yellappa and Smt Lingainma. Yellappa was having a brotlrer', by rrar,ie, l]alappa and Balappa was having a daughter by narne, Narasarr.lura^(delcrrclant No.l5) and one Mollappa was the lrusband of clefendant No.l5. Dcl'cndant:; l(r ancl i7 (appr:llants herein) wcte the sons of defendant No. I 5 and lvlolla ppa

¶57

¶58

As per the contention of thc plaintrflis iir r icu, ol- theil education, occupation and their marital status, thev werc Iivirrg in I lyderabad and Medak and used to visit Mogudampally villagc as guests 10 their palents'house during Christmas and other occasions. I'lre plaintill\ carnc to knc,rv through village elders that late Mollappa rnanipulatcd thc rcvcrluc rccords and by rn isrepresentation and fi'aud got his narnc mutatcd irr rcspect of half of the suit schedule 'A and 'B' properties rcprcscrlting that he \vas onc ol the legal representatives of late O. Yellappa. I lre- rcr crruc aLrtholitic:; rr ithout any due enquiry and without giving any ;rorice to thc plaintill.s. at [he bchest oI Mollappa registered his narne in thc rcr crluc rccords.^-fhc plaintilfs and the

¶59

ll illirl jll littil 't: iti !iilrl .:,ir r. :ltlr ",i., .,I{,Il :, !i 1r:i :lri, ,^,i 'ir ;i ,i 'il .ti ,'] '. .'i I i'. ;j 'l '; :it il ,l l'

¶60

¶61

Dr.GRR, J sa 1294 2017

¶62

ir;

¶63

del'cndants I to l4 were alone successors ol- late Yellappa and were entitled to get l/6'r' share in the suit schedulc^-A' and 'B' properties equally among themselvcs to the exclusion of one and all.^-I'he defendants l5 to 17, who were legal heirs of late Mollappa were no way concerned with the suit schedule 'A' and 'B'ploperties.

¶64

T'he plaintiffs had shown the cause olaction as defendants I to 8 along u,itl-r late O. Veeraswamy executed a regislered gift settlement deed in favour ol- dcl-cndant No.7 in rcspcct ()l' thc 'A' schedule property. On 22.12.2008. thc plaintiffs dernandcd dctcndarrrs i ro 6 and 8 for partition of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds, as per the Indian Succession Act as the dcfendants I to 6 and 8 r'etuscd. llled thc suit.^'l'hev also contended that defendants I to 6 and 8 along with dcl-endants [5 to l7 rvere trying to dispose of the suit schedule ',{ and 'B'properties and were trying to create multiplicity of litigatiorr, as such, filed the suit

¶65

7 . '['he defendants I to I4 Illcd their written srarernents admitting their

¶66

relationship with the ptaintiffs as well as the contention of the plaintiffs that they were alone legal hcirs of late Yellirppa and rvere only cntitled lor the suit schedule pr:opcrlies. Mollappa was not part ol thcir larniiy pcdigree and prayed to distribute the suit schcdulc properties. as pcr thc ltrdian Succession Act amorlgsl thc lcgal represcntativcs ol- latc O. Ycllappa

¶67

,r,.,,,,,a.F1a i ,'',-.1 ll,l7

¶68

¶69

T x F

¶70

ie,. TIrt' ,lclcndanl l.lo. i7 illt:r,! r.;r'itte n stiltciuJnt and tlte :i.lii.e \ras

¶71

adopted b1, dcf-er:dlrnts l5 and 16. I'h,:r^{..:ontenclerl} thal :;Lrit sctiedr-rlc ',' ,rn,-l^.ll, properlies wcrri.ioinrly culrivarcd t-.; (). Ycllappa r.rr:d !\4ollappa. !;r thc ycar 1970. there r.r,ar a dispute rcgaxlinil parlition of tlle sirit lands in brtr,,ccu 0. Yellaprpa ar-rd i\4olliippa and thc lnattcr rvas reported to tlie villagc elders. lhe village eldeis con.Jucted Pancirav:rtlr and in that pairchay.atl-r, it was decicl,-.d t.hat until and uttless n surn of Rs.2.(J8-<r- u,,lrich I'e ll to ttrc side of Mollappa if not paid within a prriod of four yeals h_v hir1l 16 6. Yellappa, his hall- sharc r.ight in thc agricultural lands r^roulcl c\tiitlll\lt. ,:; ltcl Jrarrcllaval's deci,.ioit l\zioiixpp.l paid thc cntire outsianding lnrotutr rt> (). \tllappa.^'ihey llrther' :iu I:rn ittu,l that after ci.eurise ol'O. Ilalappa. Ycll;:ppa br<-ruglrt N{ollappa to Mogudarnpally village and per{brrned the lrrarriilgc ti,ith dr:fendalt No. 15, fjarstrnrrrra by keeping Mollappa as illatorn son-in lari ol'lale O. Balappa, S/o. Jcitaprra.

¶72

The dclendants l5 [o 1 7 lllcd I.A.No.178 of 2011 for amendrnenr of their written statemcnr rr,hich uas allowcd on 04.02.201j. As ncr the amended plcadirrgs oldelerrdant:,i lr ro 17. the suit schedule propertic_s belonged to Jettappa and the name of Yellappa u,as coming in the reverrue recr-rrd on behalf of his f athel Jctteppa and his L.rlollrcr Balappa. Yellappa used to ntanage thc agricultulal activitics on bchall'ol'rhc .ioint lamil5,. Ihe suit propcr.tie:i .ver.e jointly culti'ated by Yellappa a.d !l.llappa a.d the suit lands rverc orally

¶73

¶74

¶75

Dr.GRR, J sa 1294 2017

¶76

¶77

i Il

¶78

l;; -...^{-i /} 4.': fr'

¶79

parliti()n.d inLo tq,o equal sharcs. Out ol the partition, an extent of Ac.2-34 gts. in Sy.Nti,il.l and au cxtcnr ol'Ac.5-34 gts. in Sy.No.289/8,, a total extent of Ac.8-18 gLs. o['Mogudarrrpally \iitlagc fell ro the share of Mollappa and his legal succcssors. As sLrclr. thcl uere in possession and enjoyment of the hatf, sharc in rir,-:^.;Lrir schcdulc ilnds and contcnded that the remaining half share fell to the slra.e ol Yellappa.^.l'hev lirrther contended that as per the amendment registcr'lirl thc vcar l9li7-ll8 ol \4ogudampally village, after expiry of 45 days as rloliil.'(i ris lter-thc l:()r'rtl N().8 o1'R.O.R. Act, no objections were received. The M.lt.(,,.. lahccrrb,d .ccorrlcd sanction and gave permission for mutation and thc snnic \'as incor'po'atccl in tlrc revenue records by way of faisalpatti for. the rcar iri;li 89 aird :irrcc thert thc namc of Mollappa was continuously appcarint in ihc rcrcrrrre rceorcls ils ()\,ncr to an cxtent ofhalfshare in the suit lands. .lollagrpa died lc'ur i,q bchind him, defendants l5 to l7 as his legal heirs. The ilcl.'iriiiints l5 to I 7 rrcrc lrrrr f ul owners by virtue of the partition deed datcd lii^{() .1.} t970 ancl lrris.i Patti lbr the year 1988-89. Even after the demise of O. Ycllalrpa, ncithcr tlrc plaintilli rror the defendants I to l4 never challenged the R.().Ii. cntries. \o :r1.rpcll rras prclerred before the R.D.O. Sangareddy Llndcr S(r, Li.)ri :tj ) 9t l(⁽ ) lt. \ct. I lcnce. tl-rc ntutation entries made by virfue of partrtiorr tl.rcd I ti o t. i^,),/() antl rhc fhisal patti for the year 1988-89 became finai. .\ ti. , c',pirr ol l0 r^g.115 tiirlr rIc date of mutation, challenging thc sanre was lr()l r. rrrtric urrrl rlr,.' \llit \us liahlc to bc disnrissed on the ground ollatches.

III I t 1 l. : i I :

1 i i I ;r I 1

i [' -3.;:

. ,, it. .t -.:ul7

Thc plaintills coiiuded with dcfendants I tc l4 and,;ons;irirt-d ro I<:,r-'t, . .r,. '.lte proDeliies n{ dcfcndarrl.s t5 to l7 and filed the l;uit lor ll;irl.ition rrill ,: ;:i:rijdc intcnl.ion, L rrou,ing, rvell that the -suit propcrtics vicri: ;r lcar,ly !.'.rr ij )ng back b1, latc Y'ellappa and re-pai'titiou ol tltc st,^l Lrrr,.ls r',,. iltc. cai'rcellation of thc eariier paltition wfls r1o1 ntiiintairlrl)ic ilt(; i lr: l.ls

¶87

disnrissccl

¶88

i0. Basing on the said pleadirrgs, the tliai r i.'r,r ii'rrrrt,i -r^{:i' .} ils

¶89

lol lo 'vs

¶90

Whethcr latc Mollappa is uo ulr.' ;,;rr '1 tir,,' t,,. . .1.. rcc and he is not thc succcss()i oi 'til,,,)1.,t

¶91

2 Whethel Mollappa wa-s illalonr :,r-'n.ir -lar'., 11,, ;1'^:r, .,q,!g1l purposes?

¶92

Whether the plaintiffs had iilcrl tl t sLrii ir ,:^jrlc inl.ention lor partition. declaratirrr, ,,.,.i ,l.,ii'.,.'r,(,n 'iri,rr(l_,

¶93

knowing well that the !ui{ il,r\11,'r't i(s partitioned long back by late Ycliaitlll rrrrcl re,pri, ! Lir,n L:i ;uit lands without seeking cancellaticln oi clrrlier 1.r 1,1i1;r.1 i 11111 maintainable?

¶94

4 Whether the p[aintit]s are cntitiij(l Ii>r partitrr r' ,r' rir: suit schedule property of their l/5rl'sh;trc rrr cach ol rl'c irl,rir,iill'-s as prayed for'?

¶95

5 Whether the plaintiffs arc c.ntitlr:rl li., llrral <lcr^, r,^.,;:r'.cd lor?

¶96

6 To rvhat relieP

¶97

Ftffi-

¶98

¶99

Dr.GRR, J sa 1294 2017

¶100

ii t il ii I ,{il

¶101

:l ii .t 'I

¶102

I ,ll ,] ,il 1 ',i rl I ,! i J 1 1 I1

¶103

,,1 d .l ,l .il I II

¶104

And also fiamcd two rnore additional issues as under:

¶105

Whether there was oral partition that was aflected betwecn O. Yellappa and Mollappa into two equal shares prior to 18.04.1970?

¶106

2 Whether the purported partition deed propoundcd by the defendants is really partition deed and is valid, legal and admissible document?

¶107

ll. The plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW. I and Exs.Al to Al7 werc rrrarkeci on be hall'ol the plaintills. The defendant No. l7 was examirred as DW. I and got cxarnincd DW.2 to prove the oral partition between Mollappa and Yellappaundcr[x.Bl4. Exs.Bl to B28 were marked on behall'of dell'ndants i,5 to 17.

¶108

l'he trial court, on considering the oral and docurnentarr evidence on record. passcd a preliminary decree awarding l/6'h share each to thc plaintiff\ in^'z{ and^'[]' sclredulc properties and dismissed the claim ol'dcf'endants l5 to lr7. Aggriocd by thc said judgment and decree datcd 19.0 I .lL) 15, tlre del'endants l5 to l7 pref-emed A.S.No.l4 of 2015. The said appeal w'as l:card br the Judge. I:anrilv CouIt-cum-VII Additional District & Scssions Judge, Sangarcddr'. lledak [)istrict. Vide judgment dated 09.08.]01 7. rhc first appellatc court tlisntisseC the appeal, confirming the .iudgmcnt and decrcc passccl in O.S.\o i,1 ol'1009 par;scd by the Senior ('ivil Judgc at Zahccrirbad.

*'i

D..CRR.J^g:i sr 1294 2017

¶113

Aggrieved further, the def'endants l5 to i7 preferred this second

¶114

appeal. This Court on 05.06.20 l8 lonnulated the lbllowing substantial questions of law:

¶115

I Whether the Ex.B I4 Jaijatu Parnpal:arn is liable to be irnpounded ald even after its markinq and therefrorn for what purpose it can be admitted in cvidence from any registration required or not: and

¶116

2 Whether thc revenue rccords and thc ROR proceedings of mutation are sufficient to say rvith reference to Ex.Bl4 if any of there was paftition earlier in 1970 to non-suit the plaintiffs and delendants I 1cl 14 of the branch ol Yellappa by the defendants l5 to l7 ol' the blanch r,f Balappa brother of Yellappa including as to an) plca o.' oustcr by aCverse possession and il so, whcthcr thc lrndings ol the courts below in decreeing thc suit lbr parrition granting l/6th intelested in plaint A & B sclredul,: prope(ies to the plaintiffs out olhallshare {bl the rernaining out of the half to another defendants arnong dcf-endarlts I to l4 in saying half share remaining that of delendant No. l5 daughter ol Balappa brother of Yellappa, lor defcndants l6 :rnd l7 to claim any right after lifetirne ol'defendant No.l5 ai'c unsustainable and perverse and requires interf'ercnce?

¶117

3 To what result?

¶118

On considering the above, this Court considers it better to simplifu

¶119

the same as follows:

¶120

I Whether thcre u,as anv carlicr partitior hetu'ecr.r Yellappa and Mollappa?

¶121

¶122

Dr.CRR, J sa 1294 2011

t.. ::.

Whether Ex.Bl4 can be admirted in evidence tbr want of any registration and whethcr thc saure is Iiablc to be irrpounded even after its marking?

¶127

Whether non-challenge of revcnuc records can be the basis to non-suit the case ol the plaintifls tbr partition?

¶128

Whether the appellants had pert'ccted their title by way of adverse possession?

¶129

Whether the courts below appreciared the oral and documentary evidence cln record in a proper perspective or whether there was any pervcrsily rvhich requires intelference?

¶130

Before proceeding t. answer the aho'c .rspects, it is considered necessary to keep in mind the scope of- the second appcal.^'I'hc FIon,ble Apex courr in Nazir Mohamed \rs. J. Kamala and ors.r surrurarizecl the principles lbr entertaining the second appeal and hcld thar:

¶131

"22. A second appcal, or lbr that nratter. any appeal is not a martcr ol right. Ihc righr of appeal is crtnferred bt' starutc. r\ second appcal only lies on a substantial qucs(ion ol- ia\. Il' statute confers a linritcd right ol appeal. rhe Court carurot expand thc scopc ol- thc appcal. It was not op.n to thc Respondcnt-Plainril l' to reagitate l'acts or to call rrpon rhc High (iourl to reanall,ze or re-apprcciate cvidencc in a Sccond Appcal.

¶132

Seotion I00 ol thc L l)('. as lurt.nllctl. restticts thc right ol'sccond appeal. to onli tlttrsc

¶133

' 1rozo1 rs scc sz

¶134

¶135

Dr.GRR, -- J sa 1294 2017

¶136

r:'

¶137

cascs. \lhcre a substantial question of aw is involied. Thc existence of a "sutrstantial qucstion of la$ " is the sine qtta non lix the cxcrcisc ol .iurrsdiction under Section 100 ol the^(lPC.

¶138

2(r. lhc principles tor dcciding uhcn a^question ol Iau' beconrcs a substantial qucstion ol law, harc bcerr cnunciatcd b1 a Constitution llcnch ol tiris CoLrri in Sir^(.lrunilal r,. i,{ehta & Sons [-td. v. Ccntur)' Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. [AIR I962 SC l3l-ll. *'hcrc this Clourt held:-

¶139

''-fhe proper tcst lor dcterminirrg whether a questiorr of las laiscd in thc case is subsrantial *ould. in orrr opinion. lrc rr4rcther it is ofgeneral public irrrportarrcc or whether it directl;, and substanl,ril) all-ccrs tlrc rights ofthe panits and il'so uuhcthcr rt rs cithcr an open^question in the scrsc llrat rl is n(]t llrall)'scttled by this Court or bt, tlre l)rirr Council or by the liederal Court or rs not llce liorrr dillicultl,or calls for discussion ofalternatire ries; lt the question is settl:d by the higlrcst coun or thc general priuciples to be applied in dctenuinirrg the question are well scttlcd and therc is a nrere questiort of applying thosc principlcs or that the plea raised is palpably.- absurd the qrrestiorl would not be a suhstantial qucstion of law."

¶140

In Ilero Vinorh r'- Sesharnmal [(200ti) 5 SC(' 5451. this Court relerred to and rclied upon Chunilal r'. Nlchta and Sons (supra) and othcr^judgnrcnts and srrmmarised the tesls to lind out u'hctlrer a^{qi cn sct of qucstions of law \crc nlcrc qucstions of larv or substantial questions ol' lau..1 hc r('lc\ ant paragraphs ol' the .;udgrnent^{oi tlris ( irrrrt in Flero Vinoth (supra)} arc sel out hcrcinbclorr:-}

¶141

"ll. 'l he phrasc "suhstantial question of la.,r"'- as^{(rccr.rrril:l} in the anrcnded Section 100^('Pt' is not dcllncd in the Code. Ihe rvord sub5lantial. as qualilliug "question of

¶142

¶143

Dr.GRR, J sa 1294 2017

¶144

lalv", means of having substance, essential, real. of sound uorth. imponant or considcrablc. [t is to be understood as sonrething in contradistinction withtcchnical. of no substance or consequence, or acadt:mic merely- Ilowever, it is clear that the legislarurc has chosen not to qualify the scope of^{"slrbstantial} quesrion of law" by sutli xing th.'rrortls^''of general importance" as hrs hecr: J,'ne 1,, ,runu othcr provisions such as Scction 109 of the Code orArticle lil(l)(a) ol' the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a sccond appcal 2(2006) 5 SCC 545 shall be hcald nccd not nccessalily be a substantial qucsLion ol' larv of' gencral importance. In (iuran l)itta r. Ram Ditta [(1927-28) 515 IA lli:AII{ 1928 PC l'l21 the phase rulr'rirrIiirl qrreslion ()l la\' as iI was cr.nplovcd in tltc lasl clause of the then cxistinq Scction I00 CPC (since omit(ed by thc.\ursndrrrcnl ,\ct. l97l) came up for consitlcration and their Lordships held rhat it did nor nrcan a substantial question of general inrportance but a substantial qucstion ol hrr u,hrch rvas involved in the casc. ln Sir^(.'hunilal case [962 Supp (3) sCR,i.19:AIR 1962 SC l3l4l the ('urrstittrtion Ilcnch cxpressed agreement rvith thc Iblloiving view taken by a F'ull []cnch ol lhe Madras l{igh Court in Rimnralapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Vecraju [i\lR l95l N,lad 969 : ( l95l ) 2 MLJ lll (Fl])l . (Sir C'hunilal case [962 Supp (.llS( l{ _5lt):,\tR 1962 SC I ilal . SCR p. -ia7)

¶145

--\'he:r a r;ucstior.r ol'law is tbirly arguable. uhcrc thcre is roonr lbr difference of opiri(,n on it or rvhcre the Court thought it r('(e\ar\ t{) de rl \'lh lhal questiOn at 5dl|]c lcnrth lrrrd discrrss altcmative views-

¶146

Dr.GRll, J sa | 29.1 201?

¶147

lr'li t, ii lt. ,t Ii ii I ii l1 :- l' 1.' i: 1. 1.,

¶148

then the question would be a substantial question of law. On the other hand if the question was practically covered by the decision of the highest court or if the gcneral principles to be applir:d in determining the question are well r;ettled and the only question was of applying those principles to the particular fact of the case it would not be o substantial qucstion of larr,."

¶149

To be "substantial", a question of lau must bc debatable. not previously settled by the law of thc land or any binding precedent, and nrust have a material bealing on the decision oI thc case and/or the rights of the partics bcforc it. il' ansrveLed cither way.

¶150

To bc a question of law "involved ir the case", thcre musl be first, a foundation for it laid in thc pleadings, and the question should cnrcrgc lrom thc sustainable findings of fact, arrived at by Courts of facts, and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and ploper dccision oI the case.

¶151

Where no such question of law, nor cr en a rnixed qucstion ollaw and fact was urged b,:fbrc the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court. as in this case, a second appeal calmot be entertained, as held by this C ourt in Panchagopal Barua v. Vinesh Chandla Goswami [(1997)4 SCC 713].

¶152

I L Whether- a queslion of law is a subsla;rtial onc and rvhether such question is involved in the casc or not, would depend on the lacts and circumstances of each case. The param()unt orcrall consideration is the need lor strikirrg a .judicious^{balancebetween the indispcns,rblc} obligation to do justicc at all stages anJ thc inrpclling necessity of avoiding prolor.rgation in

¶153

¶154

I I I I i I i I i i!I II I

¶155

Dr.GRR, J sa 1294 2017

rl I l

ilI -i llj :i

9'1: , -.;'

the life ofany lis. This proposition finds support f'rom Santosh Hazari^v - Purushottam Tiwari [(200r)^{] sccr791.}

¶162

-i2.^{In a Sccond Appeal,the jurisdiction of the} I{igh Court being confined to substantial (luestion of law. a finding of IIct is not open to challenge in second appeal, even if the appreciation ofevidence is palpably erroneous and thc finding of fact incorrect as held in Ramchandra v. Ramalingam Chettiar IAIR 1963 SC 3021. An entirely new point, raised ibr the llrst tirnc, before the Iligh Court, is not a qucstion involved in the case, unless it goes to the root of the matter.

¶163

.i-i. Thc principlcs rclating to Section 100 CPt' lclevant lol this case may be sumnrarised thus:

¶164

,l--i. | . -An inlerencc of lact fronr thc lecitals or contcnts of a document is a qucstion of fact. brrt the lcgal effect of the terms of a docurnenr is a question of larv. Construction of a docunrent. inr'6lving the application of an1, principle oI l;rw, is also a question of law.^-fherefore. when therc is misconstruction of a document or wrong rupplication of a principle of law in construing a documcnt, it gives rise to a question of larv.

¶165

i3.2.'fhe High Court should be satisfied rhat the cus'-' inrolves a strbstantial^questirtn ol lav,. antl n()t zr mere question of larv. A question of la\4 having a rnaterial bearing on the decisior of thc casr.- (that is, a question, answer to u,hich affects the rights of parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of lavt, il'it is ncrl corercd hr anl,spccific provisions oflalr or scttlcLl legal PIi:rciple^{enrergir:gfi'onr bindingpt-ccedcnts.} ;rrrtl. inrrrlr',:s a dcbatable lcgal issuc.

¶166

,i1.3. r\ substantial question ol larr rvill also

¶167

lur-rs,: in a contrary sillution. rvhere thc legal P.rsitiorr^{is clcar.} eittrer on^{accot.ul( ol cxDrcss}

i ri ,l I I II i I

r I a ;

Dr.GRR, J

provisions ol law or binding preccdcnts. lur thc Court bclorv lras decided thc ntattcr. cirhcr ignoring ol acting contrary to :uch lcqal principle. In the sccond type of cascs. thc substantial question of law ariscs uot becausc the law is still debatablc, but bccausc the decision rendered 5 AIR 1963 SC iOlt on a material question, violates the settled position ol' lari,.

¶174

sa 1294 2017 * .\

¶175

¶176

33.4. The gencral rule is. that Iligh Cloulr riill not interfere rvilh thc concunent lindings lf thc Courts below. But it is uot an absolule rulc. Son.re of the well-rccogniscd crceptions arc where (i) the courts belorv have icnorcd nrz tcrial cvidence or actcd on no cridencc:(ii) the rorrr(s have drawn wrong in['ercnccs fiorrr prtrr cd lacts by applying the law erroneousl: or (iii) rhc courts have wrongly cast the burdcn ol pro.rl. ,\ decision based on no cvidencc. clocs not rcl'cr' only to cases whele thcrc i:; a toul dcar h ol evidence, but also relers to casc- rrlrcrr tltc evidence, taken as a rvhole, is not rcasorrablr capable of supporting lhc firrding."

¶177

Lealned coullsel for the respondents also rclicc upon the judgrnent

¶178

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in G. Mahalingappa Vs. G.M. Savitha2 rvith rcgard to the scope of interference by High Courl in second appcal whcrein it was held

¶179

that:

¶180

"where such findings rvcrc lbund to l'c rcndt rcd on consideratiorr of thc plcadings atrd on olal and documentary cviclcncc ()r) rcc()r'(l and ncithcr perverse trOr^,'r'ithout an) rellsol nor Srr['[crinq fronr non-considcration of anr nllponiutt

' (200s)5 scc 441

i. 1

Dr.GRR, J sa 1294 2017

¶185

il ,t f il ii(l 1;

¶186

Ill

¶187

t I i,: 11, ll il I:I ,t i :i l' .l l'III i:.

¶188

.:-aT 1. '/ .f,^{ri* ;*} ,:

¶189

evidcnce ol admissiou ol'any part),, interl'crence therewith by High^()ourr in second appcal is not justified."

¶190

1i. Keeping in view thc said principles stated b) the lJon'ble Apex

¶191

Court, thc above questions need to be answ,ered.

¶192

SUBSI\N I'IAL UII,S'|'ION No.l:

¶193

Whethcr there was any earlier partition betwecn ycllappa and Mollappa?

¶194

Tlrc Hon'ble Apex Cor"rrt in Shasidhar and Ors. Vs. Ashrvini Uma Mathad and Anr.3 had stated thc lactors that rrcr-c nccessar).to be detennined b1'Court Ibr proper disposal of rhe partition suits as lbllorvs

¶195

"24. \/e nrat'considcr it apposite to statc bcir.Ll a u,cll settlccl principlc ol llru, tlrar in a sLrit lilcd h1 I C.l-Sharcrct. eupatecncr. e(r-()\uCr ()r.ioinl owncl, as thc casc mal be. lbr partition ancl separate possession of his/lrer share qua othcrs. it is necessary fot the ('ourt to craminc. in thc tirst instance. thc uaturc and characler ol lhc propcrties in sLril such lrs rrho rrtrs thc ttrilrn:rl owncl ol'thc suit ltlopcrties. hou and by rihich sourcc he/she acquiled srrch propcrties. r.rhctlrcr it was his/her- self-acquircd propcrr' or ancesrrirl property, or joint propert)' or coparccDar\ prol)clly in lrisihcr h.rrr,.l ancl. il :,tr. rrlro ale \cre the coparccncrs or -ioint ()\vncrs rrith hinl'hcr as tltc c:rsc rnar bc. SeerrrrJIr. lrorr thc dcrolutiorr ol his/hcr intcrcst irr tlle nroperr\ to()k placc conscqucnt upon his hcr dealh on strrriring nrenrbcrs olthe linrilr and in rrhat proporlion-

(2015) r1SCC^.,r;9

:ir

i I I { i t t I I T I I

¶201

T! I II t iltit { a q ! :t !i.i !' tili B t

¶202

l)r-.{ i l{ll. J sa 179{ 2017

¶203

whcthcr llc/shc dicd intcstatc^{.rr lcli lrchi.rdany} tcstanicntar'sLrcaL ssioltitt ll"'Llurrl{-anvlamily melnbcr or^()tLts!(lcr to^{inirclit[rislhcl sllare in} properlics itud il'so. its^{elli:ct. Ilrirtllluhcth.er} the propcrlics ltt sttil^{arcr:apat,l':oIbeing} partitroncd cllicti'. cl) artd if so^ir.rq'hal rnannL:r' [-astl1.^r.hctll,:t lll^{pr-1)Dcrti(1s ere} includ,:d in thc srtit^arrrl itll^{c,I-sllarerers.} copatccllers. cr)- o\llcl-s^0t .lcrint-ottets. aS the casc nlr\ lrc. itii I;tlttli l)lillia: to^the :rril'^Ihcsc issucs. bcinq nrrtcr ixl iilr l.r'(rl)cl^ciril-'()sal of^thc partition suit. lla\c li, hL: att:r''cred^b1 tltc^Clouri on thc basis ol-lrr,l.^lr,rc- irr'cl'^{s. l'clati()ns ol} lar.nilr Irrcnrhcrr. e\i(l,rrcc addtrccil^itndthc principlcs ol lau .rPPlicalrle to tlrt case^(sec "llindLr [.arr" lrr \lLril,r llll-, l--dilr,,n, Claptcr XVI l)artitiorr alJ^I{cLuli()r} - \4itakshari^L.arv pages J9.l -,i.17 )

¶204

¶205

18.^'Ihe case of thc^{plainril'li uiLs tltat thc suit lichedul(j'rV ratrd 'B'} pr6pefticS were thc scll-acquilcd t)r(rn(rll..'1.^{ol tltctl lirthr:r.'l'hcil ctltri.:nlion} was that the KLras|a^pahani lbr^thc ;,^{e'er iqi-l 'i5 lll.irk.ed unde; Irx.;\3rr,'ould} show that Yellappa^{was pattadat arlcl possc:is()l of suii scherlule 'A' propertl' a6{} for schedule 'B'property their^{lathcr \'as corlte i]'ed lhc riglrtas protectcdtcnant} and the said rights^were inlrcrent^{arld :clicdtrPon [rr.A27 l-enancy(-.crtificate} dated 20.06. 1976^rvhere the^lathcr ol^{thc plaintifli'nanre O. Yellappawas} declared as a protccted tenant^{ttnde r Sictlorl} --iti-lr^{tc' alt extent ol'Ac I i-2E gts.} in Sy.No.289/I). The plaintifl.s alsc Illctl i^{rs.,'\1. '\6 to A 14, palranrcs lbl the} period 1977-1978 to 1987-198[i to slrorr that the tratne of O.^'cllappawas reoorded as pattadar and cultivator^{lirr hoLirthc suit :Cltcdult: properlie's. [:xs.AI}

¶206

¶207

.; ],1 iti I jlti r! :^ri

¶208

Dr.GRR, J sa 1294 2017

t,l .i :

.<f

and A.2 are the certified copics ol I{.O.R. lor the year 1979-1980 and 19891990, whcrein the narne ol O. Yellappa was recorded as the pattadar and possessor ol suit schcdule 'A' and 'B' properties. As per the written statement filed b1'dofendant No.l7, u,hich rvas adopted by defendants 15 and 16, Mollappa and Yellappa u,cre joinrlv cullivating the said lands. The trial court recorded that uo docurncnt was lilcd by the delendants showing the joint names of Yellappa and Mollappa in tl.rc ler..enue records as joint cultivators. In the amended wl'ill-en statcnrcnr. rhc clc-f'endants l5 to l7 had taken a plea that the suit schcdulc properties rrcrc thc nnccstral properties belonging to Jettappa andYellappa rvas holdinq the sarnc on behalf ol the joint family, there was an oral partition between Yellappa and his blother Balappa. Half share of Yellappa was in rhc possession ol'thc lerral reprcscntatives olYetlappa and another half shal'e was in the posscssion ol'Nlollappa. rvho was brought in by Balappa as his illatom sr>n-in-law to Mogudaurpall-1 r illage, as such, Mollappa succeeded to half of thc- suit schedulc propcrrics.^'['here was also variance in the amended written stalcn-rcnt filcd b1 dclcndants l5 to 17. wherein they contended that after demise o{ Balappa, his blothcr Ycllappa broughtMollappa and performed the marriagc ol'Ivlollappa * ith [) l5 and kcpt hin.r as illatom son-in-law.

¶214

ilut dctl,nrllnt \o. I 7. rr lro u as examincd as DW.l admitted in his cross cxamination that thc suir scheclul.' propcrtics did not belong to Jettappa

¶215

r--

¶216

¶217

!ii:(.llll. J sa t2ql^{20 t7}

¶218

and he did^{rlot firc any d.curnentto shorv that Mollal:pa\vas owncrtrl'th': suit} schedulc^{propcrlics Defendant No' l5 was the daughtcrof Balappa lrtrther'} naffte^{lvas not entercd in tfrerevenue rgcords in the rnutaton tliat tool: nlacc in} the veat.^{I987.81i. I{e also adrrriltedthat lvloltappa was not illatoltl soll-iil.l:l.', of.} Ycltappaandthat|vlollappawasllotthclamitl,memllcrtli.Yellapplrcrliltilrltbr inheritancc.^{tle aclrnittcd that N'lollappa rvas Ycllappa's brothr'' 'r1:ru'lrle r'S} husband,butdcnictlthatl.{oltappabymisrepresentationandpr.ojet:tirl1L1:lrrlscll as legal^{successor of Yellappagot his nalne enteredinto revetlttr':rcctlrh''r'ith} rcgarcl^{to lralf ol' thc' sr-rit schedr'rlcplollcrtiesDW' I also adnrittccltlr''l h': hacl} not lllcri^{ant doctrttrent to sholv that Balappa exccuteti anl tlocutttcttr i : ll" tlur} ol Ycllappa^{asl<itrg him to lnallage his land and no dtlcutrenlwas tllu(l lo -rho\} thirttlrcttatlleofL}alappawasincludedinthereverruciccordsatrcllli.'.,r..,,tSllO docurnenr^{[llcd t. :;horv that yelappaand N'loltappa jointl-.' culti'.'arctrtir'' irrtids'}

¶219

f)cGndants^{l5 to l7 got marked Exs'lll4 to B18 ir'p'roo! L'lihcit'} contc.lion^{that thcrewasa dispute with r.egardto partition in bctri c.'rr} "'cl1.1tpa and Mollappa^{and thatmatter was referredto villageeldcrsancl t'lrtt tlr'r i illagc} elders conductccl^{panchayathand decided that until lnd tttllcssrt st'tt'tlol} Rs.l.0g5./_^{tliat telt to the sidc ol N4oltappawas not paicl rr ithirr rt Ir! r'i("1 (r! loLrr} vearstoO.Ycltappa,hishatfshareLightwouldnul6lnlllir:allyc'rtitt'-:''ti'it'rtsncr panchalat's^{decision, Mollappapaid thc above amoutrt 'he doctLtne rtt str lccl as}

¶220

¶221

:,j ill :iⁱⁱ . t' 'r1li''l 'jli r i: 'ii 'I ; i. i

¶222

Dr.GRR, J sa 1294 2011

.i\3. .-8

'JaijathLr [)irnrpakam papcr'' dated I8.04.1970 was marked as Ex.Bl4 and the receipt\ lirr' pa-vntcnl ol' ccr't.ain atnounts for Rs.400/-dated 22.05.1970, fbr Rs.400r-clated 05.06. 197 I , for Rs.400/-dated 25.06.1972 and for Rs.300/-dated 09.06.197:l rrcre nrarkcd as Ilxs.Bl5 to B 18.

¶227

I i. \ hethcr rhis clocu,teltt marked under Ex.Bl4 can be considered as

¶228

acknorr i.'dsirre lltc partition is a-nswered by the trial court under additional issues I u.il I obser'ing rhatl]xs.Bl4 and Bl5 to B18 were not part of the origirrrrl ,\ r'irt{rr statenrr'nt ol' dclbndants l5 to 17, but subsequently amendeci and ine.rP.ratccl as purr o1'rhe delence of D15 to Dl7. Both DWs. I and 2 were acccptirrr,r lrrrtl acknou ledging that there was no document whatsoever to shorv that \clrrrpPrr a,d \l.llappa .jointly cultivated the suit schedule lands at any point cl lirne.. i he docLrurcrrt acknowledging the partition i.e., Ex.B l4 as per the own atlLrission of DW. l. does not mention how Mollappa was entitled tbr a sharc i. ihl suit schctlulc propefties and how the village elders could divide the propcr-ri,.'. inlo r\,o hal'cs and give one half to Mollappa. The same being prior to I97(). rlicn the narur-al conscquence would be that the name of Mollappa ouglrr r,., uu irrcorporatcd in the rcvenue records jointly along with yellappa fronr thc- r clit I^r).'(). but tlte 5urnc \'aS not so, aS evident from ExS.Aj and .14. Be trr ccn I^()7(l uncl lt)79. thclc \ as no entry whatsoever in f'avour of Mollappa. Tlte strnri \ ()ul(l utitl(c thu .joint cultivation version vulnerable and open to cioubr

¶229

¶230

'-_: _.

¶231

,).(;l{ti. Jsr . :0..i 2017

¶232

as to what prevellted Mollappa^{to rnake an cntr')' o1'liis ttarn-,cdtrrinLrtire illc tirne} of Yetlappa. E,ven in Exs.A4^{tcl ,a, l'1, no rr hcri: tl'te tiiritrc ol' \ l'rll:';ri-urvas} recorCed contraly to rvhat DW. I^was slatilg.^{ilte llial ('c,ut't litr''hcr',,ir:;.r'vcd} that one further surpriSing and^{cutious,aspect\,a5; li.titl ,vheil l.!t'liallilto'Ncs} mone)' to Yeltal:pa and^pays lhc^{monel ancitl,e r, hor', \1rr l.t;,1'r:i t} "iiiil^{lt': givcn} hallshare on such a payment^which tle^{u'as dirc'(lli: sairl} l'l-rlle l'|i rr''r l'' irlll ally sale^{r:onsidcrationivas not explainedhi' Dl.. I}

¶233

¶234

2?-.^'fhe English translation o1't:<.lli'-l^{rrlt:, liictl ir''' tlt.'i.r;tiLi'rl: was}

¶235

recorded thcrein that:

¶236

EST,{TE PAITI'I1'IoN D()(^] [' U^F] N'I

¶237

19'10 Year, N inararn !81' t)lrr- il .li,n1 r. before all Pant:has, ()Lhi'l''ll;r1'1.rn .rrr:i Mollappa,

¶238

When all of them are togetlicr.^{lrl)()LI1 [ll. l),'rl} amount that was brought b;' \lollapl^{,a. rvh.rr} it was calculated and fbund b1^{thc pancL';} that the Rs.2,085/- loan amoutrt ol^{\lolla|1-'rr.} unless and until tlris loatt atttt',tttrt is^pnrrl back, he should not gtr his shar'.'^lrorcrrcrl. Mollappa must pay back hy^{I()7-1 arrd il'thc} said amount is rrot^paid lracil. hc^{rvill irc} released from the llstatc.

¶239

PW. I denied that the doculttcttl^{\a5 ircirlirrl} h:t lirtlr.'r".^{::. ilaltlre} Belore considering the document as a pat'titiou cicecl bcLscctr^{Yrll.rltra and}

¶240

¶241

Dr.CRR, J s^ 1291 2017

:It ..

:' I lrt

-EwF/.:-s

.:-s

.,d

Mo,appa' the right of Morappa for half share has ro be established. But, admittedly no document was fil:d by tlie defend:rnts [o sho\v that Mollappa was brought as illatom son-in-raw of Barappa and [hat it w,as agreed to give half share in the joint family properties to Mollappa. Admirtedly, the name of. neither Jettappa nor Balappa was recorded against the suit schedure ,A, or.B, properties to consider rhat they were joint lhnrily propertics.

¶250

24' The trial court basing on the adrnission of'DW r that Morappa was not trre fa,iry member of the yellappa and c.ritrecr fbr. rnrrcritarrce. observed that the said statement was enough to draw an int-ercnce that Mollappa was not from the branch of yellappa, but his erder br.other's so,-i.-iaw aud nor his real son-in-law and that Mollappa was not entitled lbr inhr-.ritance ol ye appa,s properties' Thus' Mo'appa was neither a co-hcir of co-o!rler c-ntitrcd [o any panition in the properties of Yellappa. The document ,,,rar.kcd undcr. Ex.Bl4 does not show the flow of titre and how Molrappa has becoure a co-srrarer and horv by paying the roan amount due, he was entitred fbr-a srrare in trre property ol Ycllappa' No antecedent title of Mortappa was establishcd b1,, rhe acl-endants, even if it was considered that Ex.B l4 was an acknowredgnrc't or. thc, earrier partition effected between ye,appa and Mo,appa. r'hc a,perare courr is 'rst thc linal court of facts and it arso confirmcd the juclg,icnt of.trre triar court on appreciating the oral and documentar-y eviclence on record. .[-his (.t,urt tr.cs not

¶251

¶252

fr,,f;nX.)$ sa 1294 2Ol1^.

¶253

: a I i i i t I I I l J :I :i ; : i!

¶254

I : j I I I I i I I It

¶255

f ,f, IL E ut I T

¶256

find any question ol larv inr olvcd in lornrulat-ing thi:; issue, as this issue is r solely based on the facts

¶257

SUBSTANTIAL OL.IESTION No.2:-

¶258

whethcr Ex.BI4 can be adnrittcd in evidence for *ant of any registration and whethcr the samc is liabie to bc impounded eve n lftcr its marking?

¶259

Ex.B14 was cxccuted on a rvlrite 6rzrper, ltrit not on any starnped paper and the above documcnr was not rcgistered. As no objection was taken at the time of marking, the docunrent r'.as adnrittcd in e..,idence and a marking r.vas given to it. As such. this ('ourt lbrnruiatetl this clucstion that whether Ex.B l4 can be considered as adniitted in er.iden,.:c fbr rvant ol. arry registration and wl-rether the sarne is liable to be i.rp.undcd everr after its mar.king. The contention of the learr-rcd counsel ltrr rhc appellanrs \4as that once the document was admitted in evidcrrce u ithout anr .bjcction, the objection with regard to stamp duty could not bc taken at a latcr stagc; rhe objection with regard to nonregistration of thc docurnent lies onlf if the docurnent was considered as a partition deed, but tlre docurnent nrarkcrl undcr Ex.B l4 rvrs a memorandum of settlement which was not compulsorilv reqisterablc and relied upon the judgments of the FIon'blc Aper Courr in Rar inder Kaur Grewal & Ors. Vs. Manjit Kaur & Ors.r and Korukoncla (ihalapathi Rao & Anr. Vs.

¶260

o arn zorg sc :gzz

¶261

¶262

¶263

DT.GRR,J s^ 1294 2017

,*"p

Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumars. In both the above cases, the

¶268

Hon'ble Apex Court extracted its eallier judgment in Kale Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation6 wherein it had surnmarized the essentials of the family settlement agreement as lbllows:

¶269

''10. ln other uords tn put the binding effect and the cssentials of a lanrily settlement in a concrelised fornr. thc matler may be reduced into thc lornr oIthc lollouinir propositions:

¶270

''( I ) 1'hc liurilv scttlcme nt must be a bona fide one so as to rcsol\c l'trnrilv disputcs and rival claims by a lair and c(luitablc rlivision or allotment of propcrties bct\ccn the rarious mcmbers of the lam ily';

¶271

(2) the said settlenlcnt must bc voluntary and shoLrld not bc intlLrccd bv liaud. coercion or undue intluence:

¶272

(3) Thc famill' arrangcnlent may be even oral in rvhich casc no rcqistration is necessary,

¶273

(4) It is *ell scttlcd tlrat rcgistration would be necessarl' onll il' thc terms of the family arrangcrncnt are rcduced into writing. Here a[so, a distinction slroulcl bc nrade betrveen a document containing thc tcmrs and rccitalp of a family arrangcnrent rnatlc under thc documenl and a mere mernorandurn prcparcd after the family ananqcnlcnt hael alrcadr trcen madc either for the plu'1tose o l lhc rccord ol lor information of the court lbr nrlkinr ncccssar\ mutation. ln such a casc the rnernorandunr itsclf does not create or cxringtrish aur riqhts in inrntovablc properties and thcrclorc dr)!'s not tall *ithin thc mischief ol

¶274

s civil Appeal No.6141of2O2t darcd 0r 10.2021 'ntn^{tgz6 sc 8oz}

¶275

¶276

l)r.(i ItR. .l sa I 29,1 2{) I 7

¶277

I I i i I I I I I

¶278

i l: I i I

¶279

i ll lr l, lr Il iir I j i i:i r1 t'iilri i ii i i ii I i, I ij i

¶280

Section l7(2) of the Regislratiou Lct and thcre[ore, not compulsorily registrable;

¶281

(5) I'he n.rembers rvho may be panies tt, the thrnily arrangcmcnt must have some antec,:dent titl,:clairr or interesr even a possible clainr in tire propertr u'hich is acknowledped trv tht: pailies to llrr sclllernent. Fren ii'one ot the parlics to thc settier]lent has no title but r,nder the atrangernent tllr other paft)- relinquishes all its clainrs or titles in !avour of such a person and acknowledgcs hinr to bc thc sole owner, then the antecedent ti'le rnust be assunrcd and the family arangemcnt rvill be upl.rcld and the courts will firrd no difficuitl, in gir inu assenl to tlic same;

¶282

((r) Evcn if bona fide disputes. present or possible. "r,hich^{maynot involve legal claims are s3ttledb) a} horra fide lamilv arrangement which is t'air and equitable the family arrangement is final ard brnding on the parties to the s€ttlelncfit.' (Emphasis supplied)

¶283

As see rr fiom the above judgment, the members \,ho \rere pxrries to the laluil\ at ratlqcntenI nlust have some antecedent tir lc, clairn ol int(]rest. -l'his docurncnl. rnarkcd under Ex.B14 was not a mere mcmorandurn prepacd altcr a fhnrilv an'anqenlent, but one party who is having a right over the property rvas relincluishing his half share or title in favour of the or-her person lvho was not a lanrill nterrbel' or co-sharer or co-owner of the property.^-['hc rccitals of thc docr,rrreut \'crc also not clear as to how the other party Moltappa would gct anr right. [t rcl'crs ro sor]re loan amount and states that unk:ss and until thc said loan anrount *as Paid back, Mollappa would not get his share in borervcll and

¶284

¶285

Dr.GRR, J sa 1294 2017

¶286

ffi'{v.: ,-5#

¶287

¶288

Mol lappa rrrust pay back by 1974 and if the said amount was not paid back, he would be released fiom the estate. It would only show that Mollappa was due some amount to Yellappa and he need to pay the same within a period of four years and unless hc pays the said amount, he would be released h'om the estate. but how Mollappa rvas entitled to the estate is not clear from the recitals of the above document. There was also no acknowledgment by yellappa declaring Mollappa as the sole ou,nel to the half share on payment of such amount. Thcr.e was uo dcscription o{' thc property which was allotted to Moltappa or relinquishcd by Ycllappa and its boundaries to identiff the same.^'lhus rhis docuurcnt canr.rot be tcrnied as a partition deed or relinquishment deed.^'['hcre was no spL'ciflc dcscription of the properties to identifu the same.

¶289

27.^-[-[rough DW.2 was examined claiming to be one of the attestors to the docunrent, DW.l adrnittcd in his evidence that he neither stood as a r.r'itncss nor signatory to Exs.B l5 to Il 18, as he was a child by then. No other wirness or the scribc by nanre Sangrarn alleged to have scribed the said documcnt was exarnined by the detcndants. In his evidence, DW.2 also admitted that Balappa and Yellappa w,ere brotlrcrs and Mollappa was not the son-in-law of yellappa and that hc had not ve riflcd whether there was any document showin{r rhat Balappa w,as having anv lands in his name. Thus, no witnesses were exarrrincd on behal['ol'the corltestirtg (leLcndants to prove Exs.B14 to Bl8 documcnts.

¶290

¶291

i i ,I 'j ,l jt ,] J 1 I I )

¶292

Dr.CRIt,.I sa 129,1 2017

¶293

Leamed counsel for the respondents rclicd uporl tlle.iLrdc,nrcnt of

¶294

thc l{on'ble Apex Courl in Vineeta Sharma Vs. Ilakesh Sharnra & Ors.?,

¶295

wherein it was held that:

¶296

"...We reiterate that the plca of an ornl prrrlilion oi memorandum of partition, unrcgistcr -'d^()uc can be manufacturcd at an) l)oint rn linrc. without any contemporaneous public dot uurcnt needs rejection at all costs. \ie sal so lbr exceptionally good cases u'herc partition is proved conclusivcly rrrd rvc eiruli(,r Iil.' L('urls that the finding is not to bc bascd rrn thc preponderance of probahiliticr irr r ir rr I provisions of gender justicc and th(r rirto[ olvery heavy burden of proof shiclr nrcct intendment of Explanation to Scction^(r. i ) lt has to be remembered that court\ carrnol dcleat the object of the bencficial provisions uri dc br the Amendment Act. The e\ception is r ar.r cd out by us as earlier cxecution ol a rcgistcred document for partition rvas not necessarr'- irnd the Courts were rarely approachcd fbr tlrc sakc of family prestige. lt was approachcd ls a last resort when parties wcre rlot ablc to scttlt tlrcir family dispute amicably. Wc takc notc ol lhc fact that even beforc 1956, partition in othcr modes than envisaged under Scction 6(5t had taken place.

¶297

...In view of the rigor of provisii,ns o1' Explaaation to Section 6(5) ol'thc Act ol' I^(.'5(r. a plea oforal partition cannot bc acccptL-(l i,s thc statutory recognised mode ol- pirrtili()n uDlcss effected by a deed ol partition dul) rc(i5tcrcd under the provisions o[' the licgistration .\ct1908 or effected by a dccrcc ol'.1^(()r.rfi. However, in exceptional case s^rr hcrc Ilt rt ol'

¶298

'(zozo( s scc r

¶299

¶300

Dr.GRR, J sa 1294 2017

¶301

:i.5".5 F- . , i-: _;1. , t r,-'tl -t. ,f

¶302

oral partition is supportcd by public documents and pa(ition is finally evinccd in the same manner as if it had been afl'ected by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea oI panition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly."

¶303

Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the judgrnent of the [{on'blc Apex Court in Bhagwan Das and Ors. Vs. Girija Shanker and Ors.8 rvherein it was held that:

¶304

"... a partition dced under the law rcquircs registration. Since, tl.rc docunrent [:r.P2 r.ras not registcred, it was not adnrissiblc in cvidence."

¶305

-10. I'hus the document rnarked under [:x.B [4 cannot be considercd as a partition deed or as a rnemorandum of family settlernent prepared after any tanrilv arrangement. The document executed on a blank papel bcfbre some village clders who were not examined before the Coufi cannot be considered as a clocurnent under which the father of Dl6 arld Dl7 and husband ol Dl5 by nrn.,c N4oltappa could clairn any right ovcr rhc propenies of Ycllappa. As this docunrcnL rnarked undcr Ex.B l4 also rvould not disclosc the dcscription of suit schedulc 'A' and 'B' properties or thc tcrms of'division of the ploperties inter se bctwcen thc parties or the relationship bctu,ccn thc parrics or thcil cnlitlcnrent to thc siunt:, it cannot even be considcl(rd as a nlclnorandurn ol' lhnrily scttlr:rnent

¶306

acivit App,.at No.:r82s of 1990 dated 20.09.2()00

¶307

¶308

Dr.G ItR, J sa 1294 2017

¶309

I I j{ .tI ii J fl tl fl

¶310

and does not cary any evidcntiary \aluc. It is ,ot rccording a past transaction of division or partition ol property. As such, this documcrrt does not carry any evidentiary value extinguishing the rights ol yeilappa. The rights of yellappa were not extinguished or limited by this documcnt.

¶311

SUBSTANTIAL oUESTION No.3:-

¶312

whether non-challenge of revenue records can be the basis to non-suit the case of thc plaintiffs for partition?

¶313

The contention of the Iearncd couusel fbr the appeltants w,as that thc name of Mollappa, the lather ol' dcf-cndants l6 and I 7 rvas r.ecorded in the amendment register of Mogudanrpallv r.illagc, i. the IloR proceedings rnarked under Exs.B3 and 84 for the years I 979- I 9g0 and I 989- | 99(), in rhe Faisal patti for the year 1988-1989 marked as tix.ts2 and in the paharrics marked under Exs.B5 to Bl3, but the couns belorv erosslr erred in holdinlr out that the ROR and mutation of narne of Mollappa u as not nccessar\ tcl be :hallenged as they would not create any right in lavour ol- the partics rr, ithout appreciating the fact that the revenue court had already decidcri and ururarcd the name of Mollappa and his successors DI6 and Dt7 afie' a dctailcd cncluir.v. r'he respondentsplaintiffs had not challenged fhc rc'e.ue rccorcls anrl allo*,r.d lhc same to be continued for a period ol urore than 40 veals a.cl had sc: up this case in

¶314

¶315

¶316

Dr.GRR, J sa 1294 2017

I ,|

col[usion with defendanrs I to 14, so as to def-eat the legitimate rights of the appellants.

¶321

The contention of the learncd counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs on the other hand was that Mollappa by playing tiaud and misrepresentation got entered his name in the revenue records by stating that he was the son of Yetlappa and subsequently, his namc was recorded as son-in-law of yellappa. The entries in revenue records rvould not conler title on any person whose name appears in the records of right, as per the souled law and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suraj Bhan antl Ors. Vs. Financial Commissioner and Ors.e, Meghmala anrl Ors. Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy and Ors.r0, A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. Vs. Govt. otA.l1 and Ors,rrand pratap Singh (dead) through L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. Shiv R:rm (dead) through L.Rs.r2

¶322

As per the learned counscl lbr the respondents, yellappa died on 05.07.1981 and the documents rnarked under E.xs.BI to Bl3 came into existence only after the death of Ycllappa. The revenue entries in these documents would show that in somc ol'the docuntcnts the name of Mollappa is recorded as the son olYellappa and in sorne rccorded as he was yellappa,s sonin-law. Ex.B l4 document als. rvould ,ot disclose the basis for mutation. No

¶323

'^{(zooz) e scc rge}

¶324

'o^(zoro)a scc las

¶325

" 1loot1^{+ scc zzt}

¶326

" 1zozo1 tt^scczaz

¶327

¶328

¶329

i II I i II I I i ti t:i

¶330

l)r'.GRR.., sa 129,1 2017

¶331

proceedings of revenue authorities were filed b-v-' the appellants-defendants ro show that any eniiuiry \r'as conducted by them.. As such, it would disciose thar the revenue authorities vrithout any basis had incorporated the nalne L)f Mollappa to an cxtent of half shal'e irr the suit schedule prope{ies r.i itirour giving any notices ttr the successors of Yellappa. The trial court as rvell as the first appellate court on appreciating the otal and documentary evidence on lecord and b1, placing: reliance upon the judgrnents of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the rcr cnr:c rccorCs canrrot he the t-.'asis to rnake zr claint lor titlc.

¶332

34.^'[hc fion'blc Apex Court in Suraj Bhan and Ors. Vs. Financial Commissioncr and Ors. (9 supra) held that:

¶333

'' .lt is ucll settled that an enlry in Revenue Itccords does not confer title on a person rvhose narnc appears in Record of Rights. It is settleC law that cntries in the Revenue Records or Jamabandi Irare only 'fiscal purpose' i.e. payment of landrc(:nue! and no or.,r,nership is conferred or the basis ()l' sucll entries. So far as title to the propeny is conccmcd, it can only be decided by a competent ('ir il Coua..."

¶334

i5. In Meghmala and Ors. Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy and C)rs.( 10

¶335

supra), tlre Hon'ble Aper^('ou11 held that

¶336

-'10. It is scrtled proposition of law that where an lpplicant gcts an order/office by makir.rg nl isrc prc scntation or playing fraud upon the conrpctent Authorit.v, such order carlllot be sustained in thg qy95 ol law.

¶337

i{r i{3 t{ Dr.GRR, J sa 1294 2017 iijl :1rl 1l l: i*lr E{ #t ffiii ::i I l:t $.il *1! nii t,liiii :,,:i'tl ,;l ;It'i illis rll 't; tl .ii .,iir 'i. :l

:1,

{i'

"lrr:rud aroids all iudicial acts ecclesiastical or tcnrporal." (Vide S.l'. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. &Ors. [AlR r994 SC 8511.

¶342

In Lazarus Listate I.td. Vs. Besalay[956 All. E.R3.191. thc CoLrrt obsetvcd without equivocation. that "r.ro judunrcr.rt of a ('ourt, no order of a Minister can be allorrcd ro stand il it has been obtained by fraud, fbr liaud unravels everything."

¶343

ll. In l.-lnited India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs,'Rajendra Singh &Ors. [AIR ]000 SC I1651, this Court trbscrr cil that

¶344

"[:raLrd and .iusticc never dwell together" (tiaLrs cl .iLrs nurrquarn coliabitant) and it is a pristine rrrarinr r.r,hiclr has never lost its temper over all thc:c ccrtturies.

¶345

l(r. ,\n act of ll aLrd on court is always vieu'cd :criorrslr ,\ collusion or conspiracy with a vieu,to tlcpr ivc thc rights of' the others in relation to a propcrtr "rould rcndcr the h'ansaction void ab initio. I raLrd ancl dcccption are synonymous. Although in a l]ircn easc a deccption may not amount to fraud, liuurl is .rnathcma to all equitable principles and an), rrlluir rlirrtctl rvitlr liaud cannot be perpetuated or :avcd br tlrc application of any eciuitable doctrinc rrrclLrtling rcs judicata. Fraud is proved when it is shorrn thul a lalsc representation has been rnadc (i) krrorr inglr. or⁽ⁱⁱ⁾ s ithout belief in its truth. or (iii) rccLlcssll. carelcss rrhether it be true or t'alsc. Srrppression ol- a material document would also ilnlount to a liaud on the court. (Vide S.P. C'harrs:rlr alar a Nardu Vs. Jagannath (1994) I SCC ll:^{(irnrri:hankar} &Anr. Vs. Joshi Amba Shankar l'rrnrilr I rust &Ors. lAlR 1996 SC 22021; Ranl ('harrclnr Sin{h Vs. Savitri Dcvi &Ors. [(2003) 8 ( ( 1lt,l. li()\lr.rl l)ern Vs. Precti l-al [AIR 2002 ( lll. llarr l'rcctr Yadav Vs. LJ.P. Board of tligh Sclrool & lrrtclnrciliule Education [AIR 2003 SC {(r2lil: .rrrd .:hcrk [.o'land [rd. Vs. State ol^'famil \arlu & \nr. l,\tR 100,1 SC 28361."

I ,t ,iI 1 : i I! J itI I 1',I { fl I J It": t.Ll ',ii:, l,.i! Ilfi, srE' *i tli

¶350

lr!.{.liit.., s ll() | 2c t7

¶351

Scrme of the entries iu revenuc recoi tls shorvinq tl'tc'rranic ol-

¶352

Mollappa as sorr olYellappa, some showing ir4ollapp:r as son,in-lnrr oi'\i:llappa and sorne showing Mollappa as the son-in-law of IlulapJ;a. il::cil' rr.outii irr.oi'e thc nr isrcpri:sentarion made b.y Moliappa and tlrat r^,,irhout an1, h:rsr:;. hc qirt his narnc rnutated in thc revenuc records.

¶353

31 . In A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. Vs. Govt. of ;.p. and Ors.(ll supra), thc l{on'ble Apex Court held that:

¶354

"26. Fraud may be delilcd as :ll1 irc{ rrl rlt.lih.rr,r' dcccption with thc Jcsigrr ol sctr::,rr,, ,.rrr, r.,rt r, or undeserved benefit by taking rrrrduc "Ur.,r,",,. ,rl another. In fraud one gains irt tl:r. los:; r'l arrorlrr'r.. L:.ven most solemn procecdinls stand \ iliirtl)d rt iltc\ trre actuated by fiaud. l;rarr,.l is 11111., 1111 q.',rr11,., collateral act which vitiates alljLrdir:irrl ,rr;rs rr lr. lirrr in rem or in person:rm.^-l hc principlc cl l'nrrlr,., ,,^j litigation' canlrot bc stretclrcd to rltc c\teitl ,,, .r!l absurditl' that it can be ulilizcd as tn cnr.lii,,. !,1 oppression by dishonest and fraudulenr lirisarrr..

¶355

In S.P. Cherrgalvaraya Naidu (di:ady tr1.. Llts. '. Jagannath (dead) bv [-Rs. &Ors. [( lq9+) I S( ( ]l this Court had an occasion to ccrrrsitlcr lhc rlrrt.rrirrc ol' fraud and the etlect thcreoi orr 1hc i.rrlr,;renr obtained by a party. In that casc. orrt. \ l.r .r registered deed. relinquishctl all hi: rrl,lrrs ir rlr,.'r,ir prope(y in favour of C u,ho sold thc propc rr to l). Without disclosing that fact, A filcd a sLrir ltrr posscssion against B and obtaincd prc irni:lrrr decree. During the pendenc; ol an lpplicrtrrrr t.rr {lnal decree. B canre to klrorr rrl,r,rrt llte l;r, i r'l release deed hy.. A in l'avoLl ol' ( Ilc. LI.cre !i,rc contendcd that the decrcc ',ras ntrtairrcrl h,r nlrrr rn,: fraud on the court and was a ntrllit_r. llrc lrill c,rrrrt upheld the contention and disrnissed thc aplt icaritrn. The High Coufl, howevcr. set aside rhc or(l.r o, rlrr. trial court, observing that "thcrc rras nrr lcr al ,.irrt) cast upon the plaintil)'to conte t() c(rrtrt \rli) lr lrrrc

¶356

fr1

¶357

¶358

Dr.GRR, J sa 1294 2017

¶359

ffiry4

¶360

case urnd prove it by true evidcnce" B approachcd this Court.

¶361

Allowing the appeat, setting aside thc judgment of the High Court and describing thc observations of the High Court as 'wholly pervcrse', Kutdip Singh, J. stated:

¶362

"The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. Onc who contes to the court, must come with clean-hands. We arc constrained to say that more often than not. process of the court is being abused. propertygrabbers, tax- evaders, bank-loan- dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all u,alks of life find the court - process a convonient lcver to retain the illegal-gains indefinitety. We have no hesitation to say that a person. who's casc is based on falsehood, has no rigl.rt to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation".(emphasis supplied)

¶363

The Court proceeded to state:

¶364

"A litigant, who approaches thc courl. is ltound to produce all the documents exccutcd by hinr which are relevant to thc litigation. If hc withholds a vital document in order kr gain advantage on the other side thcn he u.ould he guilty ofplaying fraud on the court as rrcll as on the opposite party".

¶365

The Court concluded:

¶366

"The principle of 'finality of titigarion, cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdiLl, that it becomes an engine of fraud in rhe hands ol' dishonest litigants".

¶367

ln Pratap Singh (dead) through L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. Shiv Ram

¶368

(deatl) through L.Rs.(12 supra), the Hon,ble Apex C)ourr rvhilc ref-crring to a

¶369

case underHirnachal Land Revenue Act, 1954 held that:

¶370

".. . record-of-rights carrics presurnplion of correctness under Section 45 of thc 195.1 Act and also under Section 35 ol the [ii.idcncc Act.

¶371

¶372

it ,.i;i Iri rj ii ,,1

¶373

:l ri I

¶374

ii'1r

¶375

Itl72. Lntries in tlrc rcvcnuc rccorC cught to bc gcnerally acccpted at their lacc rulu:. Courts should not embark upon an appcllate inquiry' into thcir correctness. Horvcver. prcstLnrption ol coriectness ol record-of-rights lvilcther they show the cxistcnce. or. abscucc oI the claimed right, title cr inicrcst, cen:rppli orrlv t,r genuinc, iiut not to l-orgcd or ti'arrdulcn entrics. Distinction rnay'bc [ine hut ent::r'irr [lc revcnue record statcs that thc cntry rs operl k) the attacli that it was madc liaudulcntly or. :;trne ptitiously. Fraud ar.rd tbrgcry rob a,Jocurncnt olall its legal eflect anrl carrn,rt lirlrrJ rr clriirt t,r fossessory ritic.

¶376

Dr.GRR, ,I sr 1294 2Ol7 !; \

¶377

Prcsunrption ol'irutl! lllached t() tlrc ;(cord-ofrights can bc rehuttcd onti iftherc is.r flaLrd in the entry^()r tlrc cntl) sas surrcptitioislv nrade or that prescr-ilrcJ procccluic rrrs not [bllowcd."

¶378

The Hon'ble Apex courl in the abo",c leitrrc(l^judgment also held

¶379

that:

¶380

"21. This Clorrrt in :ishr,rrr Yiiai llhirrtr \ Fakhrul Hasan &Ors. [( 1976) ] S(^((r.ll I hcld that the entries in thc rcvenue record ouglrt to bc r;cncrally acceptcd at thcir l-ace valLrc and coLrns should not embark upon an appcllatc inquirr into their correctness. But thc presumption ol'corrcclness can apply only to gcnuine. rrot lbrgcd or [iaudulent entries. This Cotrrt held as undcr:

¶381

"14. tt is truc that thc cntric: i11 thc re,enuc rcco[d ought. gcncrallv. to bc ucccptcd at their lacc valuc and corrrts slroLrltl rrol embirrk upon an appellate inquiry, iu 10 thcir c()rrectDcss. But tlre presull.lption olcorrcctncss cirr llPIrl. onll to gcnuine. not lbrgcd or liaudulcnt- crtrics. l'hc distinction mav be tlrrc hLrt rt is r.al. lhc

¶382

¶383

Dr.GRR, J sa 1294 201'I

¶384

¶385

'er^-.. -aE-' ;,1{.: -.^*{ it

¶386

distinction is that onc cannot challengc the corTectness of what the cntry is thc revenue record states but thc cntry is open to the attack that it rvas Madc liaudulently or surrcptitiously. Fraud and lorgery rob a document of all its legal cffec[ and canno( lbund a clainl to possessory title.""

¶387

The contention of the leamecl counscl lor the appellants was that

¶388

these revenue records were not challengcd by the plaintiffs for a period of 40 years. But as the revenue records are not documents of title, the non-challenge of the same could not be the basis to l1orl-suit rhc case of the plaintiffs for partition.

¶389

SUBSTANTIAL OUESTION No.4 :-

¶390

Whether the appellants had perfcctctl their titlc by way of adverse possession?

¶391

As seen from the records, there was no pleading claiming right of title through adverse possession by the def'endants I 5 to t 7 and no issue was framed about adverse possession by the trial court. The leamed counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgrnent o[' the llon'ble Apex Court in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and Ors. Vs. Ilcvamma and Ors.r3 wherein it was held that:

¶392

" 1zoo71^{e scc s9}

¶393

,'16

¶394

Dr.C llR, J sa 129-l 2017

¶395

"5. Atlrclsc possesslon,n oltr- sense is based on the theory or presumpl.ion that the owner has abandoncd thc prcpcrty to thc adversc pcssessor on the a,:quiescence of ihe o..,/ner to the l.rostile acts antl clainls of the pclsorr in possessioh. [t fc,ilows that sound qualities ofa typical adverse possession lie in it bcing open, continuous and hostile. [Sec Downing r,. Bird. 100 So- 2d 57 (Fta. i958), Arkansas Conrnre mcrrativc Commission v. City of Little I{ocli. 227 Ark. I085, 303 S.\i.2d 569 (1957); l\lonrxrt r. Mrrrphl'. 207 N.Y. 240, 100 N.E. 742 ( I9l..i ); iJity o[ Rock Springs v. Sturm. 39 Wyo. ,194.21 ) P 908, 97 A.L.R. | (t929).1

¶396

A pcacefrrl. opcn and continuous possession as cnur:rrcd irr th: ntaxint nec vi, nec clam. nccprcczrlio has treen noticed by this Coult in K amataka Board of Wakl v. Government of lndia and Others [(2004) t0 SCC 779] in thc frrllorving terms:

¶397

"l)lrrsical Iact crf exclusive possession and the irninrus Possidendi to hold as owner in exolusion lo the actual owner are the most important f:rctors that are to be accounted in ca^ses of this rlrtulc. ['lca ofadverse possession is rrot a pure qucstion ol law but a blended one o1'fact and lari. Thercfore, a pcrson who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he canrc into possession,(b) what was the nature of his posscssion, (c) whether the factum of posscssion rvas known to the other party, (d) ho*' long his possession has continued, and ( e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A pcrson plcading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to tlct'eat ttre rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plcad and establish all facts rrecessary to cstablish his adverse possession"

¶398

In Karnataka Wakf Board (Supra), the law was statcd. thLrs:

¶399

¶400

¶401

DnGRR, J sa 1294 2017

¶402

¶403

"ln the e1,c of law, an owner would be deemed to bc in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the o\ ner cvcn lor a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another pcrson takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostilc possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of true owner. It is a rvell- settled principle that a party claiming advcrse possession must pro.ve that his possossion is 'nec vi, nec clam, necprecario,, that is. peacclul, opcn and continuous. The pusscssi()n nrust be adequate in continuity, in publicity' and in extent to show that their posscssion is adverse to the true owner. It must start !irh a^,,vrong{'ul disposition of the rightful ou,ner antl be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile rurd conlinued over Lhe statutory period. (See : S I\4 Karinr v. Bibi Sakinal AIR 1964 SC 1254, Prrsirrrri r. Sukhi ( 1993 ) 4 SCC 375 and D N /cnkatara)appa v. State of Kamataka (1997) 7 SCC567.) Physical fact of exclusive possession and thc animus possidendi to hold as owner in crclusion to llte actual owner are the most impoftanl lactors that are to be accounted in cascs ol'this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a purc queslion of law but a blended one of fhct and law. Thcrefore, a person who claims advcrse posscssion should show (a) on what datc he cante into possession, (b) what was the nature ol his possession, (c) whether the factum ot'poss:ssion rvas known to the other party, (d) horr lons his possession has continued, and (e) his posscssion was open and undisturbed. A pcrson plcading adverse possession has no cquitics in his favour. Since he is trying to dcliar rhc richrs ol' rrue ownet it is for him to clerrrlr plead and establish all facts necessary to estahlish Itis ath,crse possession."

¶404

frr-(;ltt{..t

¶405

'a X

¶406

i I i i I i I ii il fi tr Tt ili $ T I :l I jitr.t !,1 i{ !:l

¶407

sa 129{ 2Gll^€

¶408

ll. Iuqrri;y irlltl^{the particularsofAdvcis':} f'ossessictt Inquiry^{into tl.I3 starting ptlitlt rli ird '':tsc} possessioa i.c.^{rjatesas tc uhcn th'j} laper^{() ll'Lcr got} dispossessed is^{animport:ntaspcct tohc} considered.^{lll tl:c instatttcase ti-r:j:itzu'tinipoir-rt ol'} aclverse^{possr:ssion aml Other f'ae''s su:l asth.:} n)ar,nel ill^{\r'hioh the pcssess!oltoperat iottallztr!'} natu'c of^{possessirln: lvhetherop"lr.} '-o:'litruou' unintenupted or^{hostileposses:ii('il- harc lot bectr} disclosed. .A.n obsen'ation^{hzts bceoma'lcin this} regard in S.M. I(arim^{v. M:rt. BrbiSal'irra IAlli} 1964 S(' 12541:

¶409

"Advcrse p(issessiol)^{must-cc adcc uatettt} continuity. in lrtrblicity^{anC L'xtent} 'iu(l^{'i l"lcais} rcquired at tltc^{ica:;t to slto'r uhettI)r} 's!:i5irr!l becomes^{adversg so that 'ihe srarlirlgpoinli'!'} lirnitation against^{le partl' rffcctcil can l'e} fcund. There is^{tto eviden':chcr: trhctt} possession bcoame^{advcrse' if it at all} "litl' alrd a urere suggestion^{in tho rehef clausc tlra!tllere} was an unintemtpted^{posscssi''rn tbi "'rt r':ral1 )} ,ears"^{or that the plainliffllad acouit-ccl'an} absolute litle"^{was not enoughto tais': sucha} piea. Long possession^{is not ncrcssarill adlcrst:} posscssion and the^{praver olau:;c i;irota} substitute for^a PIea."

¶410

Also mention^{as to thc real orulc- of tlrc} property must be specificalty^{made in ltn advcrse} possession claim.

¶411

In Kamataka^{WakfBoard vs' (krvt o['} lndia^{(Supra), it is stated:}

¶412

"Plaintiff,^{filing a title suit should l.rc r':ry clcar} about the origin^{of title over the propcrtl" I['-} must specifically Plead^it."

¶413

In P Periasami^{v. P Periathambi} [(1995)()^{S(-C' t]rl} this Court ruled^that -

¶414

"Whenever^the Plea^{of adversc} POSS(tSSlOrl^lS projected, inherent iu^lhc Plea^is thitt 'rttttcottc clse was the owner of^the ProPertr

¶415

¶416

¶417

I)r.GRIl,.I sa 1291 2017

'..'* -:,^. lt -ffi

The pleas on title and adver.se posscssion are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not bcgin to op€rate until the former is renounccd.

¶422

without any pleading and proof as to ^,hcn trre possession of the

¶423

appellants-defendants l5 to 17 became adverse to rhc praintitrs, the appellants cannot take the plea of adverse possession. As the appellant.s lrrc contestirlg thc matter contending that they were having right as a slrar(.r irr tlre propcrty. the plea ol'title and adverse possession are mutualll, inc.irsisrcnt. As s,.rch. thrs question is also answered against the appellants bv holcling that.rl.rc appcllants could not pe.f'ect their title by taking the plea olad'cr..,.r I)L)ssLssrori.

¶424

SUBSTANT IALO IIESTION No.5 :-

¶425

whcther the courts below appreciated the orar anr! d.cunrenrzr^, (,,iderrcc on rccord in a proper perspective or whether lhcre rv:rs jrul pcr.t,crsih, rvh ich req uires interference?

¶426

43 . on considering the judgments of the iriar cour.r .t) wcfl a-s rlie tlrst appcli:rte court, this court is of the view that the [c ,\zrs r](, lrcn,ersii_r ,D thc. .iudg1^icrrts of the courts below and both the courts hacl apprreciated thc oral and tlc'; i1111g111ua, evidence orr reco'd in a proper pcrspi,:ti.. c '"\ iihotrI i'..r irrq or actirlg contrary to any legaI principles and that th;r'e are r;o cit irattit;ic.r.rLjtirrls arisi.g in this rnatrer which are not previously sertle(l b). rire l,,rv or'the ianci.

'-i=-

,, &.:i

-,'iF+

Dr.GPJl.. J sa 1294 2011

¶433

In the result, thc second appeal is dismiss.ed confinning the judgnrcnt and decree dated 09.08.2017 passcd in A.S.No. I4 of 20 l5 on the file of thc Judge, Family Court-curn-Vll Additional Distlict & Sessions Judge,

¶434

¶435

Sangareddy, Medak Distr-ict, confirming the judgrnent arld decree dated

¶436

19.01.2015 passed in O.S.No. l4 of 2009 on th€ filc of thc Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, Medak District. Iio',vever, in the circuurstances of the case, the parties are directeci to bear^',heir own costs

¶437

As a scque!, rniscellancous applications pcncling in rhis appeal, if any,

¶438

shall stand closcd

¶439

Sd/. I.NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUTYSEGJSfRAR //TRUE COPY// VA,/ SECNOXOFFICER

¶440

To, 1. The Judge Family Court-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, Medak Diskict-(with records, if any)

¶441

The Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, Medak District

¶442

One CC to SRl. S. CHALAPATHI RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

¶443

One CC to SRl. B. SHANKER, Advocate [OPUC]

¶444

Two CD Copies

:l :

-":iiltf.ir

ffi

t'. E:.'

I t ; I : : t i I I ! I I !I III

t i I I I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2210112024

,il
.Ji..l

ORDER

SA.No.1294 of 2017

1 HE STA rA
I
q
7
g 12 il,tn zo24
tt /\C)

';lf' .',
i:sfJt,TC

¶460

DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL OQ r4v' G) $v-irtdn

¶461

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶462

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND^{DAY OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FOUR}

¶463

PRESENT

¶464

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA^RANI

¶465

¶466

SECOND APPEAL NO: 1294 OF 2017

¶467

Between:

¶468

Narsamma (Died^per L.Rs)

¶469

Babu, S,/o Late Mollappa, Aged about 52^{years, Occ: Agircutlure,}

¶470

Shiromani, S/o Late Mallappa, Aged about 50^{years, Occ Church} Pastor,^.::

¶471

All Rl/ o Magudampally, Zaheerabad Mandal,^Medak District.

¶472

¶473

*. i'-*i -'r.

¶474

...APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS^{15, 16} & 17^.,.:

¶475

AND

¶476

Smt. Sumitramma, D/o Late O.Yellappa,^Aged about 56 years, Occ ":;. Household, R/o Barrur Village, Bidhar District

¶477

Smt. Mariamma, D/0 Late O.Yellappa, Aged about^{48 years, Occ: Teactrer,} {* R/o Borabanda, Hyderabad.

¶478

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONOENTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶479

¶480

Smt. Shakuntala Devadas W/o Late O.Devadas, Aged^{about 64 years,Occ} Rtd. Nurse, R/o Anand Nagar Colony, Pastapur,^{Zaheerabad, Medak District.}

¶481

^+F

¶482

:.i, ffi

¶483

Sml. Sabitha Rani D/o Late O. Devadas, Aged about 42^{years, Occ: School+F} Teacher, R!/o Metodist Rural High School, Zaheerabad,^Medak District. :.i,

¶484

Smt. Sunith Rani, D/o Late O.Devadas, Aged about^{64 years, Occ: Rtd.} Nurse, Fl/o Anand Nagar, Pastapur, Zaheerbad,^{Medak Distrit.}

¶485

Smt. Saritha, D/o Late O.Devadas,^{Aged about31 years, Occ: School} Teacher, R/o Anand Nagar, Pastapur, Zaheerbad,^{Medak District.}

¶486

7 Smt. Sangeetha D/o Late O.Devdas, Aged about^{29 years,Occ} School Teacher, Ryo Christian Colony, Zaheerabad.

¶487

O. Sandeep S/o Late O.^Devadas, Aged^{about 26 years, Occ: gudent,Rlo} Anand Nagar Colony, PastapLr, Zalcerabad,^{Medak District.}

¶488

O. Kantha, D/o O. Yellappa, Aged^{about 60 years,Occ: Rtd. Teacher,Rl/o} H.No. 11-5-156/1, Red Hills, Hyderabd.

¶489

'lO.O. Samuel S/o Late O.Yellappa, Aged about 57 yeais, Occ: Agriculture, Rl/o Mogudampally Village, Zaheerabad, Medak^District.

¶490

j,.l: ,, |'k '','{effi;; rF

¶491

e* Fffi';..

¶492

1 1. O. Chandramma Wo Late Veeraswamy,^{Aged about 64 years, Occ:} Household, R/o^{Borabanda, Hyderabad.}

¶493

j, iff..,r .,' .-". i ffi' IF.4ir

¶494

O. Chitti, S/o Late Veeraswamy, Aged^{about33 years, Occ: Labour, Rlo} Borabanda, Hyderabad.

¶495

13.O. Vijay Kumar S/o Late Veeraswamy, Aged about 33^{years,Occ: Labour,} R/o Borabanda, Hyderabad.

¶496

Smt.shakuntala, D/o Late O. Veeraswamy, Aged about 44^years,Occ 'i Household, R/o Edulapally Village, Zaheerabad.

¶497

ffi

¶498

.:.

¶499

15.O. Sunil, S/o Late Veeraswamy, Aged about 29^yeas, Occ^{Labour, R/o} ' Borabanda, Hyderabad.

¶500

16.Smt. lndira, W/o Late David, Aged about 33^years,Ri/ o^Malakpet, Hyderabad.^'

¶501

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶502

Appeal under section 100 of CPC against orders aggrieved by^the iudgment and decree Dated 9-08-2017 in A.S.No.¹⁴ of^{2015on the file of the JudgeFamily} Court-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy,^{Medak District.} Preferred by the ludgment and decree Dated 19{1-2015^{passed in} O.S.^{No. 14 of} 2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad,^{Medak District}

¶503

ORDER: This appeal cpming on for hearing and upon^perusing the^grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the^{material papers in the} case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. S. Chalapathi Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri. B. Shanker, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶504

I I d' ffi

¶505

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶506

1 . That the Appeal be and hereby is dismissed confirming the^judgment and ,+ decree dated 09.08.2017 passed in A.S. No. 14 of 2015 on the file of the Judge Family Court-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, Medak District, confirming the judgment and decree dated^lri 19-01-2015 passed in O.S. No. 14 of 2OOg on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, Medak District; and

¶507

That there be no order as to costs in this appeal

¶508

sd/- T.NAGA LAKSHMT& DEPUTY

//TRUE COPY//

sEcTto OFFICER

To,

The Judge Family Court-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, Medak District

¶513

The Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, Medak District

¶514

Two CD Copies

{:l^is*. :,.i

trl {tt

lt:* i)l,rl: &ti'ri'

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2210112024

DECREE

SA.No.1294 of 2017

DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL ..J @q" e

¶524

,!
$ffi
rH E SIA 16:
q
J
co 1 2 ilAfl 2024 i)C)Z
*
oespqtc eO
i;.?,ail e
$rffi[.:l Lr-- \Y
!i :,r
i, -ir,
ffi
i:fiBl
,:t[:

Narsamma (Died), Medak Dist and Two Others v. Smt.Sumitramma, Bidhar Dist and Fifteen Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narsamma (Died), Medak Dist and Two Others v. Smt.Sumitramma, Bidhar Dist and Fifteen Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Raju Vs the Commissioner of a.P.Academy of Rural Develop and 2 Others

B. Gangaiah Vs v. Pratap Reddy

C.Malka Reddy Vs Smt.C.Vidyavathi

Ws. Rsr Infra-Gsrcc (Jv) Vs Sri Arun Kumar Jain, And 3 Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Madhu Latha and 6 Others

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Bangaroju Somaiah Chary and 2 Ors.