Dismissed

Smt. Maria v. G. Allen

Telangana HC23 Aug 2024SA/1336/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed second appeals filed by heirs of a deceased father in a suit for partition of agricultural properties. The plaintiffs challenged heritage land status, claiming the properties were joint family assets while defendants argued they were self-acquired through a sale. The Court upheld the lower court's finding that no evidence proved the deceased had the financial capacity to purchase the land, and inadmissible unregistered documents failed to establish ownership. The appeals were dismissed, confirming the properties' non-ancestral character.

What did the court decide?

All second appeals dismissed. No order as to costs in these appeals.

Smt. Maria Vs G. Allen — Partition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶5

SECOND APPEAL NO: 94 OF 2009 1332 1336 1357 0F 2008

¶6

s.A. NO. 94 0F 2009 :

¶7

Appeal Under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 20-10-2008 in A.S.No. B ol 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad , Ranga Reddy District preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 05-01-2007 in O.S. No. 54 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge at Chevetla, Ranga Reddy District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

G.Peter, S/o. Late Gungur Venkaiah Retd. Employee H.No.1-1, Kanakamamidi village, Moinabad Madnal, Rangareddy District

¶10

...Petitioner/ Plaintiff

¶11

AND

¶12

Sri. G.Allen, S/o. Late G. Harris Retd. Govt. Sev., R/o. H.No.99, Pragathi Nagar, Opp J.N.T.U., Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶13

Sri. G.Paranjyothi, S/o. Late G.Harris Occ: Service H.No. 1-B-718, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

¶14

Sri. G.Rathna Raj, S/o Late G.Harris, aged about 52 years, Occ: Service St. Francis High School, Zaheerabad, Medak District.

¶15

Sri. G.George, S/o. Late G.Harris Service R/o. No. 22205,fype ll, Ordinance Factory, Yeddu Mailaram Medak District. *.ts""r::::iY$S3"l,iig,

¶16

Sml. G.Ralgmma, Wo. Late G.Elia House wife R/o. Kanakammamidi Village, Moinabad Revenue Mandal, R.R.District.

¶17

Sri. G.Vinod Kumar, S/o. Late G.Venkaiah, Occ: Business R/o. H.No. 6-31261124, Methodisat Colony, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶18

Smt. tvlariya, Wo. Dr. Jashwanth Rao Samuel (Died)per LRs RR 11 to 13 ,Plot No.¹⁰ and 11, Himagiri Colony, Gandham Ghada Village, Rajendra Nagar [Vlandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict.

¶19

B. Smt. Martha,Wo. G. John (died ) perLRs RR 15, 16 Rio. 5-9-'176, Opp Stanly Girls High School, Chapal Road, Hyderabad.

¶20

Smt. V.Kamala, W/o. Jayapal( died ) per LR Respondent No. 14 R/o. H.Nb 6-3-1216/ 124 Kundanbagh, Hyderabad.

¶21

10.Smt. G.Santhoshamma, Wo. Dr. J.J.Luke Occ H.No. 5-8-50/4, Fateh Sultan Lane, Hyderabad. ( died Per LRs 17 lo 20 |

¶22

ll.Dr.Jaswanth Rao Samuel, S/o Late Samuel Jude, Aged about 82 years, Occ: Nil, R/o Plot No.10 and'11, Himagiri Colony, Gandham Ghuda Villa-ge, Rajendranagar lvlandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶23

'l2.9olomon lijay Rao, S/o.Dr.Samuel Jaswanth Rao, Aged about 59 years, Occ NlL, R/o.Plot No. 10 and 11, Himagiri Colony, Gandham Ghuda Villaoe, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy-District Piesently residing at Flat NoIl - 621U1304, Plot No 116, United Elite Apartments, On 100 Ft. Rd.,^phase 1, KavuriHills, JubileeHills, Next to SBINRI Branch, GHMC, Hyderabad, Telangana-500033

¶24

13.Samuel Sunder Rao, S/o.Dr.Sarnuel Jaswanth Rao, Aged about 5g years, Occ NlL, R/o.Plot No.10 and ll,Himagiri Nagar, Andham Ghada Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, VUay Bank, Gandhamguda, Hydershahkolte, Hyderabad 500091. (Respondents no. 1 1 to 13 are LRS of Respbndent no.7). (.Respondent Nos. 11to 13 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Respondent No. 7 vide Court Order dated' 16-03-2023 in LA.No.3 ot 2023 |

¶25

Harini Mridula Rao,. Wo. Solomon Vijay Rao, D/o Late Smt. V. Kamala, Flat No. 1-62lU/304, Plot No. 116, United EliteApartments, On 100 Ft Rd., phase 1,^{Kavuli Hills,Jubilee} Hills, Next to SBI NRI Branch, GHMC, Hyderabad, Telangana 500033 (Respondents no.^'l 1 are LRS of Respondeht no.g).

¶26

(Respondent No. 14 is brought on record as per LR of the deceased Respondent No. 9 vide Court Order dated 16:03-2023 in l.A.No. 9 of 2023)

¶27

'15.G. Srinivas, S/o. G John, Aged about 60 years, Occ Business, R/o. H. No. 5- 9-176, Opp Stanley Girls High School, Chapet Road, Hyderabad.

¶28

Smt. Subhashini, D/o. G. John, Wo Joel, Aqed 55 vears. Occ Household. R/o H .No. 5-9-176. Opp Stanley Girls High Schoot,Chafiet Road, Hyderabad.'

¶29

(Responderrt Nos. 15 and 16 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Respondent No. 8 vide Court order dated 16-03:2023 in l.A.No. 6 ol 2023 |

¶30

Manoranjan^Luke, Sio _Late Dr. John Jayara, Luke, Aged about 48 years, R/o. H.No. 5-8-50/4, Fathe Sultan Lane, Hyderabad.

¶31

1B {jay Rajkumar Luke, S/o Late Dr. John Jayaraj Luke, Aged about 43 years, R/o. H.No. 5-8-50/7, Fathe Sultan Lane, N-amp-ally Stati5n Road, Nampally, Hyderabad G.P.O , Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 5d0001.

¶32

19.Yikram.Ben1a!!1f.ukg, S/o. Late Dr. John Jayaraj Luke, Aged about46 years, R/o. H.No 5-8-50/A. Fathe Sultan Lane, Hyd6rab-ad.

¶33

20.Deepti Ada Luke, Aged about 52 years, R/o. H.No. 5-g-50/A, Fathe Sultan Lane, Hyderabad.

¶34

(Respondent Nos. 17 to 20 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Respondent No. 10 vide Court order dated 16-03-2023 in l.A.No. 12 of 20231

¶35

...RESPONDENTS

¶36

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶37

Petition under Order 39 Rule^'1 & 2 of CPC praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents No. 1 and 3 his family members and his henchmen not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property till the disposal of the second appeal in the interest of justice otherwrse, we the petitioner will be put to serious and irreparable loss which may not compensate in terms of money and leads to multlplicity of proceedings.

¶38

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶39

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to punish the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and their family members or intentionally and deliberately violated the orders of this Hon'ble Court in the interest of Justice otherwise, we, the petitioners will be put to serious and irreparable loss which may not compensate in terms of money and leads lo multiplicity of proceedings .

¶40

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. ALLAM RAMESH

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : SRI G. POORNASRI

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 : SRI P. VINAYAKA SWAMY

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1'l to 13, 17 lo 2O: MARIE DESAI

¶44

SECOND APPEAL NO: 1332 OF 2008

¶45

Appeal Under Section 100 of CPC against the decree and Judgment dated 20-10-2008 in A.S.No. 8 ot 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District prefeired against the Judgment and decree dated 05-01-2007 in O.S.No. 54 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.

¶46

Between:

¶47

G.Vinod Kumar, S/o Late G.Venkaiah, business R/o.H.No. 6-3-1261124. Methodist Colony, Begumpet, Hyderabad. .. AppellanU3'd Respondent / 3'd Defendant

¶48

AND

¶49

G. Allen, S/o. Late G.Harris Retired Govt. Servant R/o. H.No.99, Pragath Nagar, Opp. JNTU Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶50

G.Paranjyothi, S/o. Late Harris Service H.No. 1-8-718, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

¶51

G.Rathna Raj, S/o. Late Harris Pvt. Service St. Francis high School, Zaheerabad, Medak District.

¶52

G.George, S/o. Late G. Harris Service R/o. No. 22205,fype ll, Ordinance Factory, Yedu Mailaram, Medak District. .. Respondents/ Appellants / Defendants 4 to 7

¶53

G.Peter, S/o. Late Gunjus Venkaiah Service H.No. 5-9-175, chappal Road, Hyderabad. .. RespondenU Respondent No 1 / Plainiiff

¶54

G.Rajamma, ( died )

¶55

Smt. Mariya, Wo. Dr. Jashwanthrao Samuel Occ: Nill, Plot No. 10 and 11, Himagiri Colony, Gandham Ghada Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District. (died per LRs RR 11 to 13 )

¶56

Smt. Martha, Wo. G.John R/o. 5-9-176, Opp. Stanly Girls High School, Chapal Road, Hyderabad ( Died per LRs RR 14, 15)

¶57

Smt. V.Kamala, Wo. Jayapal R/o. H.No. 6-3-'12161124, Kundanbagh, Hyderabad. ( Died ) per LR R - 16

¶58

10.Smt. G.Santhoshamma, W/o. Dr. J.J.L-uke H.No.5-8-50/A, Fateh Sultan Lane, Hyderabad. (died per LRs RR 17 to 19)

¶59

1 1 . Jashwanthrao Samuel, S/o Late Sariruet .tu-Oe, aged about 73 years, Occ Nil, R/o- Plot No^'10 and 1 .1 , Himagiri Colony, Gandhamguda, Hydersha Kote, Hyderabad.

¶60

12.Samuel Sunder Rao. S/o. Jashwanthrao Samuel, aged about 50 years, Occ Nil, R/o. Plot No. 10 and 1^'1 , Himagiri Colony, Gandhamguda, Hydersha Kote, Hyderabad.

¶61

't3 Soloman Vijay Rao, S/o. Jashwanthrao Samuel, aged about 50 years, Occ Nil, R/o. Plot No. 10 and 1"1, Himagiri Colony, Gandhamguda, Hydersha Kote, Hyderabad.

¶62

(RR 1 I to 13 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased as per the order of the Hon'ble Court in SAMP No. 51 of 2013, dated 13.6.2013)

¶63

14.G. Srinivas, S/o Late Smt. M. [Vlartha and Late G. John, Aged about 60 years, Occ Business, R/o H No. 5-9-176, Opp Stanley Girls High Sohool, Chapal Road. and Hyderabad.

¶64

15.Smt Subhashini, D/o Late Smt. M. Martha and Late G. John. Wo Joel. Aoed about ss_years, Occ. House wife, R/o H.No 5-9-176, Opp Stantey Giris liign School, Chapal Road, and Hyderabad.

¶65

( Respondent Nos. 14 and 15 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Respondent No. 8 vide Court Order dated 15:2-2023 in l.A.No. 3 of 2023 )

¶66

Harini Mridula Rao, Wo. Solomon Vijay Rao, D/o Late Smt. V. Kamala Flat No 1-62lU/304, Ptot No..1 16, United EliteApartments,On l00 Ft. Rd., Phase 1, Kavuri Hills. Jubilee Hills, Next to SBI NRI Branch, GHMC, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500033

¶67

( Respondent No. 16 is brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Respondent No. 8 vide Court order dated 15-02-2023 in l.A.No. 6 ot 2O231

¶68

Manoranjan Luke, S/o Late Dr. John Jayaraj Luke, Aged about 48 years, R/o H. No. 5-8-50/A, Fathe Sultan Lane, Hyderabad.

¶69

18.4jay Rajkumar Luke, S/o. Late Dr. John Jayaraj Luke, Aged about 43 years, R/o. H.No. 5-8-50/7, Fathe Sultan Lane, Nampally Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad G.P.O., Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh - 500001.

¶70

19.Vikram Benlamin Luke, S/o. Late Dr. John Jayaraj Luke, Aged about 46 years, R/o. H.No. 5-B-50/A, Fathe Sultan Lane, Hyderabad.

¶71

( Respondent Nos. 17 to 1 9 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Respondent No. 10 vide Court order dated 15-02-2023 in l.A.No. 9 ot 20231

¶72

.., RESPONDENTS

¶73

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶74

Petition under Order -39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 his family members and his henchman not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property till the disposal of the second appeal in the interest of justice otherwise, we, the petitioners will be put to serious and irreparable loss which may not compensate in terms of money and leads to multiplicity of proceedings .

¶75

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶76

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to punish the Respondent Nos.^'l and 3 and their family members or intentionally and deliberately violated the orders of this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice otherwise, we, the petitioners will be put to serious and irreparable loss which may not compensate in terms of money and leads to multiplicity of proceedings

¶77

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2008(SAMP . NO: 3011 OF 2008)

¶78

Petition under Order 41 Rule 27 Rlw. Sec. 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the faisalpatti 1954-55 along with English translated copy in the above SA. as additional document.

¶79

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(SAMP. NO: 3010 OF 2008)

¶80

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC 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 Judgment and decree in A.S.8/2007 on the file of the SrCivil Judge, Vikarabad, R.R.District Dt. 20.^,l0.2008 pending disposal of the above SA.

¶81

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. R. BALA SUBRAMANYAM

¶82

Counsel for the RespondentNos.l to 4 : SRI G. POORNASRI

¶83

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 14, 15:. SRI A. NARASIMHAREDDY

¶84

SECOND APPEAL NO: 1336 OF 2008

¶85

Appeal Under Section 100 of CPC against the decree and Judgment dated 20-10-2008 in A.S.No. I of 2O07 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 05-01-2007 in O.S.No. 54 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.

¶86

Between:

¶87

Smt. Maria, Wo. Dr. Jashwanthrqo Sgmge! R/.9. Plot No. 10 and 11, Himagiri Colony, Andham Ghada Village, Ralendranagar Mandal, Ranga^- Reddy - District.(D|ED)per LRs RR Nos. 4 to 6

¶88

Smt. V.Kamal, Wo. Jayapal R/o. H.no. 6-3-12'161124 Kundanbagh, Hyderabad. ( died ) per LR Respondent No. 7

¶89

Smt. G.Santhoshamma, Wo. Dr. J.J.Luke R/o, H.No. 5-8-50/4, Fathe Suiltan Lane, Hyderabad.( died ) per LRs 8 to11

¶90

Dr. Jaswanth Rao Samuel, R/o. Plot No.^'10 & 1'1 , Himagiri Colony, Andham Ghada Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶91

Solomon Vijay Rao, S/o. Dr. Samuel Jaswanth Rao, Flat No. 1-62lU/304, Plot No.^'1 16, United Elite Apartments, On^'100 Ft. Rd., Phase 1, Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hiils, Next to SBI NRI Branch, GHMC, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500033

¶92

Samuel Sunder Rao, S/o Dr. Samuel Jaswanth Rao, R/o. Plot No. 10 86 11, Himagiri Nagar, Andham Ghada Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Vijaya Bank, Gandhamguda, Hydershahkote.

¶93

( Appellants No. 4 to 6 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Appellant No. 1 vide Court order dated 16-04-2012 in SAMPNo. 1980 of 2O11l.

¶94

Harini Mridula Rao, Wo Solomon Vijay Rao. Flat No. 1-621U1304, Plot No. 116, United Elite Apartments, On 100 Ft. Rd., Phase 1, Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills, Next to SBI NRI Branch, GHMC, Hyderabad, Telangana 500033

¶95

(Appellant No.7 is brought on record as per LR of the deceased Appellant No. 2 'iide Court Order dated 08-02-2023 in l.A.No. 3 ot 2023 |

¶96

B. Manoranjan Luke, S/o. Late Dr. John Jayaraj Luke,Aged about 48 years, R/o. H.No. 5-8-50/4,Fathe Sultan Lane, Hyderabad.

¶97

I Ajay Rajkumar Luke, S/o. Late Dr. John Jayaraj Luke, Aged about 43 years, R/o. H.No. 5-8-5017, Fathe Sultan Lane, Nampally Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad G.P.O., Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh - 500001.

¶98

1O.Vikram Benjamin Luke, S/o. Late Dr. John Jayaraj Luke, Aged about 46 years, R/o, H No. 5-8-50/4,Fathe Sultan Lane, Hyderabad.

¶99

'1 l.Deepti Ada Luke, Aged about 52 years, R/o. H.No.5-B-50/A, Fathe Sultan Lane, Hyderabad.

¶100

(Appellant Nos. 8 to 11 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Appellant No. 3 vide Court Order dated 08-02-2023 in l.A.No. 6 ot 2023 |

¶101

...APPELLANTS

¶102

AND

¶103

G. Allen, S/o. Late G.Harris Retired Govt. Servant R/o. H.No. 99, Pragath Nagar, Opp. JNTU Kukatpally, hyderabad.

¶104

G.Paranjyothi, S/o. Late Harris Service H.No. 1-B-718, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

¶105

G.Ratna Raj, S/o. Late Harris Pvt. Service St. Francis high School, Zaheerabad, Medak District.

¶106

G.Georg, S/o. Late Harris Service R/o. No. 22205, Type ll, Ordinance Factory; Yedu Mailaram, Medak District. .. Respondents/ Appellants/ Defendants 4 to 7

¶107

G.Peter, S/o. Late Gunjus Venkaiah Service H.No. 5-9-175, chappal Road, Hyderabad. .. Respondent / Respondent No. 1 I Plaintiff

¶108

G.Rajamma, (died on 17 -7 -2008 hence not necessary party)

¶109

G.Vinod Kumar, S/o. Late G.Venkaiah, Occ: business R/o.H.No. 6-3-1261124, Methodist Colony, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶110

(Respondent No. 3 in A.S.No. 2007 set aside party by order dt.31-10-2006 in l.A.No. 238/ 2006 in O.S.No. 54 /95 . Hence not necessary party in this Appeal)

¶111

Smt. Martha, Wo. G.John Rio. 5-9-176, Opp. Stanly Girls High School, Chapal Road, Hyderabad.

¶112

( Respondent No. 7 is not necessary party in this appeal)

¶113

...RESPONDENTS/ Respondents 2, 3, 5/ Defendants 2,3,9

¶114

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2008(SAMP . NO: 3017 OF 2008)

¶115

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay

¶116

all further proceedings including the execution as per the decree at 20.10.2008 in A.S.No. 8 ot 2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Viakarabad, Ranga Reddy District of during pendency of Second Appeal.

¶117

Counsel for the Appellants: Smt. RACHNA S WADDEPALLI

¶118

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 : M/s. G. POORNASRI

¶119

SECOND APPEAL NO: 1357 OF 2008

¶120

Appeal Under Section 100 of CPC against the decree and Judgment dated 20-10-2008 in A.S.No. I ot 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 05-01-2007 in O.S.No. 54 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.

¶121

Between:

¶122

'l . Martha, Wo. G.John ( died ) per LRs 2 & 3 Occ: House hold R/o. 5-9-176, Opp: Stanly Girls High School, Chapal Road, Hyderabad. ... AppellanURespondent No.5/ Defendant No. I

¶123

Girigilla Snnivas S/o. G. John , aged about 68 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. 5-9-176, Opp: Stanly Girls High School, Chapal Road, Abids, Hyderabad

¶124

J G. Subhashini Wo. S.K.Joel Kumar, aged aobut 65years, Occ: Housewife Rio. Plot No.21 H,No. 4-16-21, Himagirinagar Colony, Road No. 1,

¶125

( Appellants No. 2 & 3 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Sole Appellant, vide Court Order dated 20-01-2023 in l.A.No. 2 ot 2018)

¶126

...APPELLANTS

¶127

AND

¶128

G.Allen, S/o. Late G Harris Retd, Govt. Servant R/o. H.No. 99, Pragathi Nagar, Opp J.N.T U., Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶129

G.Paranjyothi, S/o. Late G.Harris Service H.No. 1-8-718 Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

¶130

G.Rathna Raj, S/o Late G.Harris Pvt. Service St. Francis High School, Zaheerabad, tiiledak District.

¶131

G.George, S/o. Late G.Harris Service R/o. H.No. 22205, fype ll, Ordinance Factory Yeddu Mailaram, Medak District. .. Respondentsl Appellants/ Defendants No. 4 to 7

¶132

G.Peter, S/o. Late Gunjur Venkaiah Service R/o. H.No. 5-9-175, Chapal Road, Hyderabad. .. Respondent / Defendant No. 1/ Plaintiff

¶133

G.Rajamma, W/o. Late G.Elia House wife R/o. Kanakamamidi Village, Moinabad Revenue Mandal, R.R.District.

¶134

9.Vinod Kumar, S/o Late G.Venkaiah business R/o. H.No. 6-3-126t124, Methodist Colony, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶135

Qmt Manya, Wo. Dr. Jashwanth Road Samuel Plot No. 10 and 11, Himagiri Colony, Gandham Ghada Village, Ra,jendranagar lttlandal, Ranga Reddy^- District. ( died per LRs RR No. 1'l to 13)

¶136

Smt. V.Kamala, Wio. Jaypal R/o. H.No. 6-3-12161124 Kundanbagh, Hyderabad. (Died ) per LRs Respondent No. 14

¶137

10.Smt. G. Santhoshamma, Wo, Dr. J.J.Luke R/o. H.No.5-B-50/A, Fateh Sultan Lane, Hyderabad. ( Died per LRs RR Nos. 15 to^.18)

¶138

'l 1. Dr. Jashwanth Rao Samuel, S/o. Late Samuel Jade 86 Late Smt. Mariya Aged about 82 years, Occ Nil, R/ o. Plot No. 10 86 11, Himagiri Colony, Gandham Ghuda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Retdy District.

¶139

l2.Solomon lijay Rao, S/o. Dr. Samuel Jaswanth Rao, Aged about 59 years, Occ NlL, R/o. Plot No. 10 86 11, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Red-dy District. Presently residing at Flat No. 1-621U/304,^plot No. 116, United Eltte Apartments, On 100 Ft. Rd., Phase-1, Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills, Next to SBI NRI Branch, GHMC, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 033

¶140

'l3.Samuel Sunder Rao, S/o. Dr_ Samuel Jaswanth Rao, Aged about 5g years, Occ NlL, Rio. Plot No. 10 and 11, Himqgiri Colony, Gandham Ghuda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶141

(-Respondent Nos. 11 to 13 are brought on record as per LRs ofthe deceased Respondent No. 8 vide Court Order dated 02-03-2023 in l.A.No. 9 of 2023 )

¶142

14.Harini Mridula Rao, Wo. Solomon Vijay Rao" Flat No. 1-621Ut304, plot No. '1 '16, United Elite Apartments, On 100 Ft. Rd., Phase l, Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills, Next !9Se! rufit Branch,,GHIv{C, Hyderabad, Tetangana - 500 033 - .

¶143

(Respondent No. 14 is brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Respondent No. 9 vide Court order dated 02-03-2023 in l.A.No. 6 of2023)

¶144

Manoranjan-Luke, S/o Late Dr. John Jayaraj Luke, Aged about 48 years, R/o. H.No.5-8-50/4, Fathe Sultan Lane, Hyderabad.

¶145

'16 Ajay Rajkumq !y!e, S/o late Dr. John Jayaraj Luke, Aged about 43 years, R/o. H.No.5-8-50f2, Fathe Sultan Lane, N'ampally Station Road, Nanipally, Hyderabad G.P.O. Hyderabad - 500 001.

¶146

'lT.Vikram Benjalqn Lukg, S/o. late Dr. John Jayaraj Luke, Aged about 46 years, R/o. H.No. 5-8-50/4, Fathe Sultan Lane, Hyderabad

¶147

Deepti Ada Luke, Aged about 52 years, R/o. H.No. 5-B-50iA, Fathe Sultan Lane, Hyderabad.

¶148

( Respondent Nos. 15 to 18 are brought on record as per LRs ofthe deceased Respondent No10 vide Court order dated 02-03-2023 in l.A.No. ...RESPONDENTS 3 ot 2023 )

¶149

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008{SAMP. NO: 3075 OF 2008}

¶150

Petition under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant an ad-interim injunction in favour of the Petitioner and

¶151

against the Respondents No.1 to 5 restraining them interfering with the peaceful possession of the Petitioner over the petition schedule properties.

¶152

PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTIES

¶153

All that part and parcel of agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 27, admeasuring Ac. 5- 39 guntas, bounded by: EAST : Sy.No. 77 and Land of B.Eraiah WEST : Land of Kamalamma SOUTH : Land of Telugu Anjaiah NORTH : Land bearing Sy.No. 77 And Land bearing Sy.No. 77, admeasuring Ac. 16-06 guntas, bounded by : EAST : Land of Malla Venkataiah WEST . Land of Tunga Chandraiah SOUTH : Land Bearing Sy.No. 27 NORTH : Road Leading from Hyderabad to Vikarabad. Totally admeasuring Ac 22-06 guntas, situated at Kanakamamidi Village, Moinabad Madnal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶154

Gounsel for the Appellants: SRl. A. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶155

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : M/s. G. POORNASRI

¶156

Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: SRI ALLAM RAMESH

¶157

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 7: SRI R. BALASUBRAMANYAM

¶158

The Court delivered the following Common Judgment :

¶159

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT.JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI} SECOND^{APPEAL Nos.94oF 20091332 1336} 135 7 of2OO8

¶160

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶161

Aggrieved by^{the Judgmentand Decreedated 20'10'20O8} in A.S.No.S of^{2OO7on the file of learned SeniorCivil Judge at} VikarabadDistrict,theseSecondAppealsarefiledbyplaintiff, defendant No.3,^{defendantNos'8, 10 and 11 and defendant} No.9 respectivelY.

¶162

For the sake^{of convenience,the partieshereinafterare} referred to as^{theyare arrayedbeforethe trial Court'}

¶163

-ry" .qp-oellelli" !r4 Ng:g{^{oI 2oo3 i'e'; the sole plaintiff} has hled O.S.No.54^{of 1995 before the learned Junior Civil} Judge, Chevella^{for partitionand separate possessionin respect} of suit Schedule 'A'^{and B'schedule propertiesagainst} defendantNos.ltoll'Thesuitwaspreliminarilydecreedon O5.01.2007.^{Aggrievedby the same, defendant Nos'4 to 7 h.ave} preferred A.S.No.8 of^{2OO7 on the file of learned Senior Civii} Judge, Vikarabad,^{whereinthe appealwas partly allowed by} setting aside^{the Judgment and Decree passed in O'S'No'54 of} 1995 to^{the extent of A' schedule property' Aggrieved by the} judgment passed by the^{learned SeniorCivil Judge' Vikarabad'}

¶164

¶165

nlt;P, r ..^a1 ,,0o.. 1.J3,!. 1-136 &. 1357 20AA

¶166

the sole plaintiff, defendant No.3, defendant Nos.8, lO,^{11 and} defendant No.9 have preferred the present Second Appeals to set aside thc impugned^{judgmentpassed} by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad and confirm the^judgment passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chevella.

¶167

Before going into the merits of the case, it is appropriate to know the contentions of the respective parties as can be seen from the pleadings placed before the learned Trial Court by both the parties in O.S.No.54 of 1995.

¶168

The plaintiff frled O.S.No.S4 of 1995 with the following plaint averments

¶169

a) The plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 3 and husband of defendant No.2 by name G. Elia are real brothers. Their father Gunjum Venkaiah was the absolute owner, pattedar and possessor of agricultural lands bearing sy.No.27 admeasuring Ac.5.39 guntas, Sy.No.77 admeasuring Ac. 16.O6 guntas total admeasuring Ac.22.O5 guntas in residential house situated at Kanakamamidi village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Gunjuru Venkaiah died in the year 1976 leaving behind the plaintiff, defendant Nos. I and 3 and husband of defendant No.2 by name G. Elia as his legal heirs and

¶170

¶171

s-94 2OO9,^{1332,133.e,13572(bA}

¶172

successors.

¶173

b) Thereafter, the^{plaintiff and his brothers werein joint} possesslon and enjoyment^{of the suit properties'Revenue} authorities granted succession^{and mutation ofpattaof} schedule "A"^{properties and implementedthe same in paisal} patti for the^year l97a-7g.^{The second son of G' Venkaiah i'e''} G. Elia died in^{the year 1989 leavingbehindhim' his widow} Smt. G. Rajamma,^{who is defendant No'2 as his legal heir'}

¶174

c) Defendant No.1^{havingfabricatedunregisteredsale} document^{purportedto the year of 1953 initiated proceedings} beforetheMRO,Moinabadforvalid.ationfal-selyclaimingthat he purchased^{suit schedule property'After due enquiry' M'R'O'} rejected his claim^{frle order dated 26'10'1994 irt proceedings} No.B/5Oa8/ 1989.^{In the presence of elders, he demanded the} defendants to^{effectpartitionof the suit schedule propertiesinto} four equal shares.^{The defendantNo' I is making attemptsto} alienate the suit^{scheduleproperty to third parties' Hence' the} plaintiff filed the suit^{for partitionof suit scheduleA' arrd 'B'} schedule^{properties into four equalshares and for allotment of} one such share^{to the} Plaintiff.

¶175

6 During the^{pendency of the suit,defendantNo' 1 died and}

¶176

¶177

NAP. J s 94 20a9,1332. 133A& 1357_2aoa

¶178

-t

¶179

thereby his legal representatives^r.vere brought on record as defendant Nos.4 to 6, which filed their written statement and the brief averments of which are as under:

¶180

a) G. Venkaiah was an agricultural coolie having four sons and four daughters. Defendant No.l became a teacher in Methodist Boys High School, Abids ald with his eamings prior to 195O itself a stationary shop was established in the name of G. Harris and Sons. The wife of defendant No. 1 also workecl as Nurse in Nizam palace. With the earnings of wife and husband, they purchased suit 'A' schedule properly through an unregistered sale agreement on 22.05.1953 from Konda SatSranarayana Reddy for a sum of Rs. 1800/-. Konda Satyanarayana also gave an affidavit before the revcnue authorities stating that the suit A' schedule property was purchased by G. Harris. Defendant No. I used to cultivate the lands and in possession and enjoyment of the suit 'A' schedule property.

¶181

b) The grandfather of these defendants passed away in the year 1976 leaving behind plaintiff, defendant No. 1, husband of defendant No.2, defendant No.3 and defendant nos.8 to 11. Plaint A' schedule property is the self acquired property of G.

¶182

¶183

MCP,J 94 2(n9,^{1332 1336& 1357.2004}

¶184

Harrisi.e.,defendantNo.l.Theplaintiffisnothavingany cause of^{action against thesedefendantsand suit valuation and} court fee Paid^thereon 1S not correct^{and thus,prayed} to dismiss the^suit.

¶185

Defendant^{No'7, who is another son of defendantNo'l'} filed memo^{adopting the written statementfiled by defendant} Nos.4 to^6.

¶186

Defendant^{Nos'8 to 11' who are the daughtersof iate G'} Venkaiah,^{were impleadedas parties to the suit by virtueof an} order dated^{08.10.1989 in I'A'No'43 of 1998 and they filed their} written^{statement'the brief avermentsof which are as under:}

¶187

Late G.^{Venkaiah,who was the owner and possessorof} a) plaint A' and^{'B' scheduleproperties'died in L}rre year 1976} Ieaving^{behindfour sons and four daughters i'e'' plaintiff'} defendant^{Nos.l, 3, husband defendant No'2 and defendant} Nos.8 to^{11. The scheduleproperties are self acquired} properties^{of G- Venkaiah' After the death of G' Venkaiah' the} defendants^{along with the plaintiffare in joint possession and} enjoyment^{of schedule properties' A successionis granted in} respect^{of suit A' scheduleproperty by MRO and the same was} implemented^{in the year lg78-7g 'Paisal Pathi is absolutely}

¶188

MAP, J s 94 2009, 1332, t336& 1357 2008

¶189

false. It seems by colluding with revenue officials, succession order was obtained and as a matter of fact defendant Nos.8 to 11, who are daughters of G. Venkaiah also succeeded to the suit schedule properties being the iegal heirs but the MRO without enquiring the matter properly passed the alleged succession orders without any notice to the defendant Nos.8 to 11, as such, the alleged orders have no value and not binding on these defendants.

¶190

b) Defendant Nos.S to 11 being daughters of G. Venkaiah are also entitled for their legitimate share i.e., 1/8G share to each of these defendants. Plaintiff and defendant Nos. I to 3 filed the above collusive suit with a view to deprive the legitimate share of these defendants. The plaintiff never approached these defendants nor demalded .for any partition and the alleged date of cause of action is only an imaginar5r one for filing of the suit.

¶191

c) The valuation made by the plaintiff is incorrect and in fact the suit lands are worth more than Rs.50,0O0/- per acre and thus, prayed to dismiss the suit.

¶192

Based on the above pleadings, the learned trial Court framed as many as five issues including two additional issues,

¶193

¶194

*^{94-2AO9,1332'1336& l3s7'2OOA}

¶195

which are^{as under:}

¶196

Whether^{the plaintiff isentitledfor} '| . property^{as prayed} ol""t."'^.i' ""it--".'t"at-'rt for? 2. Whether^{the plaintiff is entitledto ll4th} share^{claimedin the Plaint?} 3. To what^relieP 4. Whether^{Exs'Bl to 83 are not admissible} on the^{ground of fabricated one?}

¶197

Whether^{Ex'X-Sis admissibleor not' by} way of^{mode of} ProoP'

¶198

On^{behalf of plaintiff' PWs1 and 2 wereexamined and got} ' 4 marked^{bxs.A1to-A19'On behalfof defendants} ':DWs'lto were examined^{and got marked Exs'Bl to B8'On behalf of} Court, Exs.Xl^{to X6 were marked'After considering the rival} contentions,thelearnedtrialCourtpassedapreliminarydecree entitling^{plaintiff, Iegalheirs of defendantNo' 1 i'e'' defendant} Nos.4^{to 7, defendant No'2'DefendantNo'3' defendant Nos'8 to} 11 to 1/8n^{share each' Aggrieved by the same' the legal} representatives^{of defendant No'1 i'e'' defendant Nos'4to 7} have filed^{A'S'No'8 of 2OO7 on the file of learned Senior Civil} Judge,^{Vikarabad, whereinthe preliminary decree passed by} the learned^{Junior Civil Judge, Chevella in o.S.No.S4/ 1995 was} set aside^{to the extent of suit 'A' scheduleproperty'Aggrieved}

¶199

¶200

MGP, J e u 2ao9,1i32, 1336& 1357 2OOA

¶201

by the same, the sole plaintiff, defendant No.3, defendant Nos.8, 10, 11 and defendant No.9 have preferred the^present Second Appeals to set aside the impugned^judgment passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad and confirm the judgment passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chevella.

¶202

Substantial questions of la'*, raised in S.A.No.94 of 2003 are as under:

¶203

a) Whether the appellate court is^justified rn relying on Ex.Bl, which is an unregistered deed for the purpose of rebutting the presumption to be drawn on the basis of Ex.A 1.

¶204

b). Iq v_igw of the fi.nding of the learnecl Junior Civil Judge that Ex.B 1 is not admissible in evidence whether the Appellate Court is^justified in coming to a conclusion that the suit schedule property is not a joint family property.

¶205

c) The findings of the Appellate Court to the effect that the suit scheduie property is the self acquired property of the father of the defendant Nos.4 to 7 is perverse and contrary to the material on record.

¶206

Substantial questions of law raised in S.A.No. 1332 of 2008 are as under:

¶207

a) The lower appellate court failed to see that late Venkayya had perfected his title by adverse

¶208

¶209

MCP, J e s4 2OO9^{li32, B3AA Bs7-2ooa}

¶210

possession^{from 1953 onwards which is evidentfrom} Faisalpatti^{of 1954 -1955'Late Venka}ya has been} shown as^{pattadarin pahani' which is nothing but} title to^{the land has been recognizedunder Section2} (11) of A.P.^{(Telangana Area)Land Revenue Act'1917} Fasli.

¶211

The appellant^{and respondent No'l and LRs of} b) late. Harris^{and Elia also perfectedtheir title through} their father^VenkaYYa'

¶212

The lower^{appellatecourt erred in reversingthe} c) finding^{of the TrialCourt by hoiding that the schedule} property^{is the self acquired propertyof defendant} No. 1, which^{is totallydevoid of merits'}

¶213

The lower^{appellate Court oughtto haveseen} d) that under^{Ex.A2Pahani 1988-89' the respective} shares of^{four brothers were shown and recordedin} the revenue^{records, whereequalsharesare givento} brothers.^{The conduct of G' Harris also amounts to} estoppel^{and operates againsthim'}

¶214

The lower^{appellatecourt failed to see that the} e) alleged^{agreementof sale Ex'Bl' cannotbe admitted} as document^{as itis sulferingfrom the following} infirmities.

¶215

! The^{purchaser name is not disclosed} The agreement^{not witnessed by any person'} d

¶216

¶217

MAP'J e-94-2OO9, 1332, 1336& 1357-2004

¶218

h) The document is unregistered. i) The document does not contain any schedule or boundaries or survey numbers.

¶219

j) The time fixed for registration i.e., 8 months lapsed long back and any suit based on the said document is barred by limitation.

¶220

k) The lower appellate court grossly erred in relying on Ex.B 1 an unregistered and void sale agreement inadmissible in evidence by virtue of the prohibition contained in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 17 (b) and 49 of the Registration Act.

¶221

The lower appellate court erred in relying on the declaration of Konda Satyanarayana Reddy fited before MRO which cannot be treated as conferring title, when the agreement of sale is unregistered.

¶222

1 3. Substantial questions of law raised in S.A. No. 1336 of 2008 are as under

¶223

a) Whether the document whose recitals do not contain the nalne of the purchaser, seller, consideration, boundaries of the schedule propert5r and the factum of delivery of possession of the property which constitutes the essential ingredients of sale can be termed as sale deed under the Transfer of Property Act, and basing upon such documents, whether title to property can be granted?

¶224

¶225

MEP,^J s^{44 2\og, 1332,1336& 1357-2dN}

¶226

Whether^{one son of aperson' who died} b) intestate^{can exclude his own brothers and sisters for} succeeding^{to the property of their fatherunder} Indian^{SuccessionAct,1925?}

¶227

Substantial^{questionsof law raised in S'A'No'1 357 of} 20O8 are^{as under:}

¶228

That in^{a partition suit the burdenof proving the} a) fact as^{to whether the suit schedule propertiesare self} acquired ProPerties^ofthe defendant^{lies onthe} defendant^{or the} PlaintifP

¶229

b) That a^{Court acting in its original jurisdiction} can^record a finding^on presumPtions^and assurnptions^{wheqthg qia rlgding 1s contraryto the} pleadings^{or not supported by any pleading?}

¶230

Whether^{the entries in KhasraPahanican be} c) overlooked^{on thebasis ofpresumptionszind} assumPtions?

¶231

Whether^{the Ex'B1 can be admitted in evidence} d) for the^{purpose of decidingthe title} for want^of 17 of the registration^{as required under Section} Registration^Act.?

¶232

The appellate^{Court erred in not considering the} e) fact that^{tili the death of late Sri G' Venkaiah' the} entries^{in ttre revenuerecords reflected that he is the} pattedar?

¶233

¶234

s 94 200q, 1332, 1336& 1357_200A

¶235

f) Whether Ex.B 1 was proved in accordance with the provision of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

¶236

g) Whether the appellate Court was^justified in reversing the^judgment of the trial Court without even discussing the oral evidence on record?

¶237

Whether Ex.B1 can be treated as Sale Deed even h) though it does not satis$r the requirement as contemplated under Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?

¶238

i) Whether the appellate Court was^justified in not deciding the issue of admissibility and genuineness of Exs.Bl to E}3 even though a specific issue was framed and decided by.the triaJ, Court?

¶239

Heard both sides and perused the record including the grounds of Appeal.

¶240

As can be seen from the record, most of the substantial questions of law raised by the appellants are with regard to documents relied upon by the defendant No. 1 and his legal heirs. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. Though there are several parties in the suit, they can be divided into two branches i.e., one branch (defendant No. 1 arrd his legal heirs) claiming that suit A' schedule property is tJle self acquired property of defendant \

¶241

¶242

4^.N 2009.13321^{t336e-13572004}

¶243

No. 1 and^{the other branch (plaintiff'defendant No'2' defendant} No.3, defendant^{Nos.Bto 11 and their respective legalheirs)} claiming that^{suit 'A' schedule propertyis the self acquired} property of^{lateG. Venkaiah'There is no dispute with regard} to the^{preliminary decree passed by the learned Trial Court in} respect of^{partitionof suit 'B' schedulepropertybetween the} parties.^{Thus, we are only concerned with suit A' schedule} property in these^{appeals' Hence' now the only point to be} adjudicated^{intheseappealsis whether suit 'A' schedule} property is self^{acquired property of defendant No'l or the self} acquired^{property of lateG' Venkaiah'}

¶244

The crucial^{documents.tb' resolvethe'abovedispute} between^{the parties are Ex'A1 and Ex'Bl'The plaintiffrelied} upon Ex.Al^{Khasra Pahanifor the year 1954-55to establish} thatlateG.Venkaiahistheownerandpossessorofsuit.A, schedule property.^{On the otherhand'defendantNo'1relied} upon Ex.B1^{unregisteredsale agreementtoshowthat} defendantNo.lpurchasedthesuitschedulepropertyfrom Konda SatYanarayana'

¶245

It^{is the contentionof the plaintiff that Ex'81' which is an} unregi,stered^{document' cannotbe marked in evidenceandeven}

¶246

I.1

¶247

MGP,J e 94 2.Nq, 13f,2. 1336 31 1357 2AOa

¶248

if marked in evidence by mistake, could not be^acted upon.^In this connection, reliance is placed on a decision in Krishnakumari v. K. Suresh Kumarr, wherein the High^Court for the State of Karnataka at Bengaluru observed that there^is a complete and express bar under sub-section^(1-A) of Section^17, which requires that, in such agreement whereby^physical possession of the property is delivered, it would require to be registered compulsorily. Further, it is the contention of the plaintiff that immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/ - has to be through registered documents and in this regard, reliance is placed on decision of High Court of Madras in K. Narayanaswamy Pillgi v,. Smi. Kannamal2 . and also the decision of High Court of Karnataka. in Shriehail v. Tippawwa and others3. I-earned counsel for the plaintiff while relying upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Suraj Lanp Industries Private Limited v. State of Haryaaaa submitted that an Agreement of sale or AGPA does not confer title over a property. Learned counsel for the piaintiff further relied upon a decision in K. Seetharama Reddy and another

¶249

'^{r{ANU/ KA/0736/0015}

¶250

, 2014 SCC Or ine Mad 1260

¶251

3 MANU /KA/2r74120174

¶252

{ MANU/SC/ r222l201 I

¶253

¶254

94 20A9,^{1332,1336& 1357-2004}

¶255

v. Haasatr Ali^{Khan and otherss, wherein it wasobserved by} the High^{Court for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradeshthat} under Section^{5-A of the A.P' right in Land and PattadarPass} Books Act,^{197 l, an agreement of sale simplicitor is not enough} for regularisation^{of the document underSection 5-A of the said} Act. A similar^{viewwastaken by High court for the Stateof in} Makhala Kotilingam^{byLRs v' Joint Collector'R'R'} District6. In^{Rangammal v' Kuppuswamiand anotherT the} Honourable^{Supreme Courtobservedthat the burden of proving} a fact always^{lies upon the person who asserts it and until such} burden is^{discharged,the other party is not required to be} called upon^to Prove^{his case'}

¶256

There is^{absolutelyno doubt in the principles laid down} in the above^{said decisions' Itis the plaintiff' who has} approached^{the Courtfor partition of the properties claiming} that the suit^{schedule properties as joint family properties' It is} not the defendant^{No' 1, who has Iiled the suit for declaration of} histitleoverthesuitscheduleA,property.sinceitisasuit brought up^{by the plaintiff for partition, the burden lies upon} himtoestablishthatSuitl,scheduiepropertyisjointfamily

¶257

s 2Oo2 SCC Oiline AP 1036

¶258

6 2oo5⁽²¹ ALD 834

¶259

7 t2OW 12 Supreme Court Cases^22O

¶260

¶261

1a)

¶262

sa-91-2009, 13,J2, 1336& 1357 200a

¶263

property. A proof of the existence of a^joint family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member of the family is^joint, and the burden rests upon anyone asserting that any item of property was^joint to establish the fact. But wherein if it is established that the family possessed some^{jointproperty,} which from its nature and relative value may have formed the nucleus from which the property in question may have been acquired, the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the^joint family property.

¶264

The l-lonourable Supreme Court in fhaSwan Dayal v. Reoti Devi, Shrinivas Krishnarao Xqrrgolrr. X;ffiIr Devji Kangos and D.S. Lakshmaiah v. V. Balasubramanyame,

¶265

observed that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a^joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that the propert5r is a joint family property. if, however, the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, there would be presumption of the property being joint and the onus would shift on the person who claims

¶266

3 (1955) I SCR l

¶267

\ \ , (2003) lO SCC 310

¶268

¶269

T"P, J sa 94 f,(n9,^{1332,t336A. 13572OOA}

¶270

it to be self-acquired^{property to prove that he purchasedthe} property with his^{ownfunds and not out of joint family nucleus} that was available.^{Therefore, tJle law is well settledthat the} burden lies upon^{the person, who ailegesthe existenceof the} Hindu undivided^{family to provethe same,and if the persons so} asserting^{proves that there was no nucleus with whichthe joint} family property^{couldbe acquired, there would be presumption} of the property^{being joint and the onus would shift on the} person who claims it to^{be self-acquired propertyto provethat} he purchased the^{propertywith his own funds and not out of} joint family nucleus that^{was available''}

¶271

In the^{present case, the plaintiff assertsthat suit 'A'} schedule^{propertyis self acquired property of G' Venkaiah and} after the demise^{of his father, suit A' schedule property is} inherited by the^{descendantsof G' Venkaiah' In orderto} establishthesame,theonlydocument,whichisbeingrelied upon by the^{plaintiffis Ex'Al Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-} 55. At this^{juncture, learned counselfor the defendant Nos'4to} 7 relied upon a^{decision in Prabhagiya Van AdhikariAwadh} Van Prabhag v.^{Arun KumarBhardwaj(dead) through legal}

¶272

¶273

ycP, J * 94 2OO9,1332, 1336& t357 2008

¶274

representatives and otherslo wherein the Honourable Supreme Court observed that revenue record does not confer title to the property nor day they have any presumptive value on the title. [n Union of Iadia and others v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and othersl^I the Honourable Supreme Court observed as under:

¶275

"This Court in seueraL^judgments has held that th.e reuenue records do nol anfer title. In Corpn. of the Citg of Bangalore u. M. Papaiah this Court held tlut:

¶276

'5. .... It is finnlg established that the reuenue records^qre not documents of title, and the question of interyretcttion of a d.ocument not being a docutnent of title is not a question of lanu." 22. However, in Joint Collector Ranga Reddy v. D. Narsing

¶277

Raoi2 the Honourable Supreme Court observed that Khasra Pahani is the basic record of rights prepared by the Board of Revenue Andhra Pradesh in the year 1954-55 and as per Regulation No.13 any entry in the said record of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. In the 2nd edition (1997) of "The Law kxicon" by P.Ramantha Aiyer, Khasra is described as register recording the incidents of tenure and is a historical record and that it would serve the purpose of a deed of title, 'a,hen there is no other title deed. In G.

¶278

to AIR 2O21 Supreme Court 4739 "^{(2OI4)2 SupremeCourtCases269} "^{MANU/SC/0024/2015} \

¶279

¶280

,tfcr, J

¶281

94 2!Nq,^{1332,!336&t3s72004}

¶282

Satyanarayana^{v. Governmentof AndhraPradeshr3 the High}

¶283

Court for^{the erstn'hile State oi AndhraPradesh observedas}

¶284

under:

¶285

'From the lenqthy^{disrttssiorlon tf@ lafldtenures ttderlakerl} hereinbefore,^{it cruld be ieduced that the qenesisof oies title is} trace.ohletohi.spossess.on.Areqkteredoc.llpantofthPtand.,'bothuader ii")it ".^{tenureand also under the esl@tes'i's recoqnised'os@ persolr} it&iiq ialnt"^{ouerthe land Subiect to paumentof land reuenuettll the} nia i t orokn"d^{k) anotherperson'aregistered} ,occt'Lpont^was Jrla iiri ttq^{rtsht of setlr..sthe land to a:u thilT pqrtstt'ithout} ,itta"dorr".^{Thns' therecoqnised possessiot canbe said to.be the source-} of a nersotts title.^{l"heposiession of a person is reftectedin thc rccord's'} ";r":;;,:;-.;;;;.,. ,'lo'i ppq,st.r/ Diqtot in Madras. Pre'sidetrcu^{o^d the} Sethwaf in^{Telangana a,"i. o.the'|r,otherof alt the Regtsters. Thouqh} i"'irrLrtl^{intnniion of prepainq this Reqbt..rwas,to clc.ssifllthe lr:.tu7s} "i.lriiirrq then.rmesofl,heperson:;illoccupatioftwasonequdllllimportafutobiect^{io the soitona iZtt"tiolit'and assess the:eu.enue'recording} in-pr.poang ho^{ntgister,for,Loithoutreardinqthenantesof the persotLs} in oq^{pation, the(ioueotmentwitl notbe able to coltect} .reuenue^{' ALI the} reuenue-^recnrds "'"it^{o" ntqi'ttt" A to E anrl-.monthJgandannual} a""""L ,vr.l^{to 4 and io"ioAr;r;ount"in Andhraore.a and wasool} gooui. Xtr-Sro Pr.hq,ti, Pahani Patik'^{Choufasla' Faisal pattietc} ' ;3;;;.;;;;",,b"'t,i, ii r"t""s""a^{Areoare based} .on^thebasic .-.i"tet of Diolot/ Sethu'l.lr'^{Therefore' if o persons rutmeis recordedas} ';:";k;i";,*;;' ;;;;tri' in tn""' reards' a ne<,,ss,,ru^preswnption u.tould^{(lisein hb} fowur^{or in faoourof thq persons.uhoclaimthrouqh} ii^ tinot nn^{flotdstitle: to the land'In wse of a dispute betueentlDo} priudte prrrties' tno^{p'"tu-ptioi *nb.e rebutted' bll th?-ioalclaimontbu} nto.lucina benet^{eutdence'suchas subsequentpartttions'fitttalion in lhe} ';i,;;;'i.;;; trans(tctions^{etc'In manlt cases' after} 'iri"*rlii" ,i o.lot/'*thwat, ";;"'".,iii,,)ii ""t' changes in ort,nershio o[ larul molt occ r' ln such cases,^{o pn.:;on *io} ""t"^{iP nualclaim.mustbe dbleto show} th\t eithef^he o,^{ni" pr.a.ii"or-in-titledeiued righttlaough s{tle deeds} supporled^{bg enties in reuenue record "}

¶286

23.Further,inShikharchardJainv'DigaEberJainPraband

¶287

Karini Sabha^{and othersl4 the Honourable Supreme Courtobserved} that Khasra^{is a recordof right accordingto Section 45 (2) of the} Central Provinces^{Land Revenue Act' 1917 and Section 80 (3) of that} Act provides^{that entries in a record of right shallbe presumedto be}

¶288

r.' MA]\tu/Al,/0431/20^| 4 tr4974l I Suprcmc Court^{Casrs 675}

¶289

¶290

MCP, J s 94 21fr9,1332, 1336& 1357 2004

¶291

correct unless the contrary is shown.^{This provision raises a} presumption of correctness of Khasra entries.^{In MylaramLachaiah} and others v. Nafeezunnisa^{Begum aad anotherlsthe High Court} for the erstwhile State of Andhra^{Pradesh observedthat once it is} held that Khasra pahani of which the^{correctionwas sought by the} lst respondent is the record^{of rights preparedunderthe regulation,} the Collector under Section 15^{(2) of the Regulation has the right to} correct the entries made in the record of rights. In^Veera Macheneni Ranga Rao v. State of^A.P.16 this^{Court observed as}

¶292

under:

¶293

' "As per tle ratiolaid doutn^{in G.Satganarayana case(4} supra) while dealing with the Telangana Area^{Land C.ettsus} Rules, 1954, the erstirhile High Cciiii^of Andhra^{Pradbsh held at} para No.83 as under:

¶294

These rules were made under^{Section 97} of tle Tenan(:g Act. Under these^Rules, land^{census, as} defined bg Rule 2(fl of the Rules, u)as taken up^{bV the} Gouentnteti. The important^record i.e.,^{Kho.srrrPohanr} is a document prepared under^{tLeseRules. Rutes 8 fo} 13 speak of prouisional Kha^sra Pahani and Rule¹⁴ speaks of fair copg of Khasra^Pohani.The said^record is an important record and entry as^pottaddr in^the same utottld confer absolute title ouer the^land occupied.'

¶295

In view of the principle laid down in the above said decisions, it is clear that a Khasra Pahani would serve the purpose of a deed of title, when there is no other title deed and that entries in a record of right shall be presumed to be correct

¶296

's^{(t972) ILR 6s2}

¶297

16 (2021) 09 TDL CK 0063

¶298

¶299

s 94^{2009, t:).i2, 1336 & 1337-20l)4}

¶300

unlesstheContraryisshown.lnPartapSingh(dead|through legal representatives^{and others v' Shiv Ram (deadthrough} legal representativeslT^{theHonourable SupremeCourt} observed^{that the presumption of truth attachedto the record of} rights can^{be rebutted only if there is a fraud in the entryor the} entry was^{surreptitiously made or that prescribed procedure} was not followed.^{lt was further observedthat it will not be} proper to rely^{on the oral evidenceto rebut the statutory} presumption as^{the credibility of oral evidenceuis-a-uis} documentary^{evidenceis at a muchweaker level'}

¶301

The^{plaintiff, who was examinedas PWl' deposedthat} suit schedule^{properties are self acquired properties of his late} father having^{been acquired from one SatyanarayanaReddy'} ButasseenfromEx.AlKhasraPahani'thefatherofPWlwas shownasoccupierofthesuitA,schedulepropertybutnotas purchaser of^{suit 'A' scheduleproperty'As per the admissionof} PW1, Konda^{Satyanarayana Reddy is the original pattedar of} suit A' scheduie^{property' Further,the personfrom whomthe} father of^{PW1 alleged to have purchasedsuit 'A' schedule} property i.e',^{KondaSatyanarayana Reddy declared inthe}

¶302

r? (2OlO) I I Supreme Court Cases 242

¶303

¶304

+toP,^J s-l4-2009,1332, 1336 & 1357 2AOa

¶305

proceedings before the Mandal Revenue Officer that he alienated suit 'A' schedule property to defendant No. 1. Though PW 1 deposed that his lather purchased the suit A' schedule property from one Sat5ranarayana Reddy, he failed to adduce any evidence as to when (date/ month/year) the said lald was purchased, what was the sale consideration amount involved in the said transaction and what was the mode of acquisition etc. If at all father of PW1 purchased the suit 'A' schedule property from Satyalarayana Reddy, there could have been some material under which the sale transaction took place between PWI and Sat5ranarayana Reddy. PW1 pleaded ignorance about exqqulion g[.gny. dgcu,r4pn!, at. the-.dme ql pgqhasg of suit Arschedule property.

¶306

It is to be observed that column No.14 of a Khasra Pahani shall reveal the way in which the occupant in column No.13 came to hold the land. In the present case, as can be seen from trx.Al, column No. 14 discloses that G. Venkaiah is t1le pattedar. There is no mention as to how he became pattedar of the said land. When G. Venkaiah came into possession of the said land by way of purchase from the original pattedar, then column No. 14 of Ex.Al ought to have revealed that G. <sup>Venkaiah came to hold the land as^,purchaser, but not as

¶307

¶308

s s4 2009,^{1332,1336&13572004}

¶309

'pattedar'.^{As per the instructions issued by the Board of} Revenue^{(Land Reforms), caremustbe taken to show how the} occupant's^{right is derived from pattedar' The transactionsof} sale, gift,^{partitionetc.,which mighthave taken piace before the} the occupant^{of columnNo' 13} right hnallY^{devolved uPon} I11 the^{present case, there rs no} should be^{indicated. But} indication or^{mentioneither shortly or brieflyas to howG'} Venkaiahcametoholdthelandfromtheoriginalpattedar.In fact, G.^{Venkaiah, himself was shown as pattedar at column} No.14.^{Further, entry should showwhether the transaction is} covered by^{a registeredor an unregistered document' The} names of^{-persons from whorn'theright 'is deriv-ed and'} 'the amount of^{consideration paid should also be indicated' If the} ownership of^{a certainland changes' the name of previous} owner may^{be cancelled by drawing vertical parallel linesacross} the entry^{and the name of new owner shall be written below it'} In the^{present case, there is no mention as to how the sale} transactiontookplacebetweenoriginalpattadarKonda Satyanarayana^{Reddyand G' Venkaiah and as to what is the} sale consideration^{for the said transaction'Ex'A1doesnot even} disclose^{the name of the vendor from whom G' Venkaiah alleged} to have^{purchased the suit 'A' schedule property'}

¶310

2,1

¶311

MEP,J * 94 2001r,1332,^{1336&1357-2004}

¶312

ln case,^{where the right or title cannotbe ascertained by} production of any^{document, butwhere theland is} undisputedly in^{possession of the occupant, the words by long} standing wahiwat^{or usage' or 'title not known' shall be added'} In the case on^{hand, at one instance it is being contendedthat} thesalewasoralandatanotherinstanceitisbeingcontended that the sale^{was by way of registereddocument and moreover} no material is^{hled on behallof the plaintiff to any extent to} show that G.^{Venkaiah purchased the suit A' schedule property} from Konda Satyanarayana^{Reddy,who is the original pattedar'} It is also to be^{noted that if there are any oral transactions'} special^{,eaa:o..is . needed,to,,. be-.. takerl . .hecaqsp. puc,hQt+I.-} transactions can^{onlybe recognised if clearlyand undisputedly} admitted by all^{parties concerned specially by the person whose} right is adversely affected.^{In such cases,the words 'by oral} agreement' should be written.^{In the present case, the parties} concerned, especially the^{person, whose right is adversely} affected, is not admitting^{the sale. Evenfor the sakeof} arguments, if such interested^{personhas agreed, there is no} mention of "by oral agreement"^{in Ex.Al Khasra Pahanito} estabiish that a sale took place^{orallybetween G' Venkaiahand} Konda Saryanarayana Reddy, who is the^{original pattedar'}

¶313

¶314

NGP. J sd 94 2009, 1332, li36^{61357 2004}

¶315

On a careful^{perusalof Ex'Al Khasra Pahani'it does not} disclose most of^{the detailsas per the prescribedprocedure'} Except the name^{of pattedar, extent, survey number' nature of} land, most of the^{columnsare kept blank'In view of the above} facts and circumstances,^{any amount of suspicionarises about} the genuineness^{of Ex.A1, moreparticularly,whenthe plaintiff} andhisotherbrothersfailedtoestablishastohowtheirfat}ter acquired the^{suit A' schedule property' It appearsthat the said} Khasra Pahani^{might have been preparedwithout foltowing the} due procedure^{prescribedunder the Act withouteven inspecting} the schedule^{land by the concerned officials'}

¶316

Except^{hling of revenuerecords, plaintiff did not ltle any} other document^{to establishthat the suit A' scheduleproperty} is self acquired^{propertyof his father' It is the contention of the} plaintiff that the^{names of plaintiff,husbandof defendant No'2'} defendantNo.3wererecordedaspattedarsandpossessorof plaint 'A' schedule^{property by virtue of the orders passed by} the MRO,^{Moinabadin the year 1989 on the groundthat} plaintiff, husband^{of defendant No'2, defendant No'3 being legal} representatives^{of their father G'Venkaiahhave their respective} shares in suit^{schedule 'A' property'If such is ttre case' then} the name of^{defendantNo' 1, who is one of the sons of G'}

¶317

q l.

¶318

')6

¶319

MAP,J so 94 20A9, 1332, 1336& 1357 2008

¶320

Venkaiah is also liable to be entered in^the revenue^recordsin respect of property held by G. Venkaiah. Admittedly defendant No.1 was not even served with any notice as required under^the A.P. ROR Act in the said^proceedings before the^MRO, Moinabad, which is against one of the^{prime principles} of 'audi alteram pattrt' .

¶321

Though the application of defendant No.1 for regularisation of unregistered saie deed and updation of his name in records vide proceedings No.B/5048/ 1989 was rejected, the defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisiorial Officef; Chevella and accordingly the matter was remanded to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Moinabad for conducting a detailed enquiry.

¶322

The cross examination of PW1 conducted on O7.08.2OO3 by learned counsel for defendant Nos.4 to 7 discloses that PW1 knew the fact of purchase of suit A' schedule property by his father from Konda Satyanarayana Reddy prior to 1953. But in the cross examination of PWl conducted on 22.O1.2OO4 by learned counsel for defendant Nos.4 to 7, PWl deposed that his father purchased the plaint A' schedule property from K. Sathy:rnarayana Reddy in the year 1953. At one point of time

¶323

¶324

¶325

EP, J e 94-2009, 1332,^{1336 & 1357-2004}

¶326

PWI deposed that his^{father cultivatedthe lands of Konda} Satyanarayana Reddy.^{There is no clarit5r as to whether father} of PW1 has cultivated the^{lands of Konda SatyanarayanaReddy} on lease or^{purchased the lands from Konda Sa$anarayana} Reddy. Thus, the^{veryown versionsof PW1 on differentdates of} his cross examination^{are contradictingwith each other' In} Ramesh Kumar and^{another v. Furu Ram and anotherl8,the} Honourable Supreme^{Court observed that it is well settled that} no amount of^{evidence contraryto the pleadings can be relied} on or accepted. It^{was further observed that differentversions} clearly demonstrate^{fraud and misrepresentation'}

¶327

PWl is aware^{that from198O-86the name of defendant} No. I is entered in^{the revenue records as pattadar' But PWl} along with husband^{of defendant No.2 and defendant No'3filed} application before the^{ROR authorityinthe year 1988-89} during^jamabandi of^{KanakamamidiVillage askingas to why} their names were not^{entered in the revenuerecords'There is} no explanation from^{plaintiff, as to what prevented him from} taking steps immediately against^{entering thename of} defendant No'¹ in the revenue^{records in respectof suit A'}

¶328

rs (2Ol l) 8 Suprcme Court Cases 613

¶329

MGP, J sa^trt 2OO9, 1332 1336& 1357 2OAA

¶330

scheduie property. PW 1 admitted that he has not filed any written application for mutation of their names in the revenue records. If entering the name of defendant No. 1 in the revenue records as pattadar from 1980-86 in respect of suit A'schedule property is illegat as per the version of PW1, then certainly PW1 alleging to have share in suit A' schedule property, would have filed an application for mutation of his names and names of other defendants in revenue records.

¶331

Defendant No. 10, who is sailing with plaintiff, was examined as DWt and she gone to the extent of deposing that thgre, is a. document. lo establish .that. plaint A' schedule property belongs to his father having been purchased under registered sale deed from Konda Sat5ranarayana. But the plaintiff contends that the sale of suit A' schedule property took place between G. Venkaiah and Konda Satyanarayana under oral agreement. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the statements of Konda Sat5ranarayana and others before the Mandal Revenue Oflicer cannot be taken into consideration as the said statements are not admissible as per the provisions of Evidence Act. In Partap Singh's case (supra) the Honourable Supreme Court observed as under: \ 'fhe proceedirgs before the Reuenue OJficer for tnrrection

¶332

2t)

¶333

MGP. J tu_94^{2009,1332, 1336 &1357 2008}

¶334

of reuenue record^{are sumntaryirL natureThestatements} iecorded by ttrc^{ReuenueOfficer during tle proceedingsfor} conection oj^{reuenue record are not per se admissible in euidence'} Mag be thi euidence of^{the witnesses could be usedto confront} the- uitness being a^{preuious stotement if such a statement is} made on oath- iherefore,^{the referetce of correctionsof Khasra} gird,auari proceedtngs is^{t.rthollg unutarrantedwhest suchenties} are not^{proued to be incorrect.'}

¶335

In general,^{the reason for not considering the statements} recorded before the^{Mandal Revenue Oflicer, Moinabad is that} the said statements^{will be recorded withoutadministering oath} and the said statements^{will not be subjected to cross} examination. It is not^{the case of the plaintiff andother} defendants that tJ.ey^{are not awareof the proceedingsbefore} the Mandal Revenue^{Oflicer, Moinabad' The evidence ol PWl} discloses that though^{he and defendantNo'3 participated 'in the} proceedingi, .irr,Jy' aia not aviii' an-opp-ortunity to engage an advocate to^{contest the said proceedings'The statements of} Konda Satyanarayana,^{Maliamma,Ramaiahand Veeraiahwere} recorded before the^{MandalRevenue Officer, Moinabad'The} defendant Nos.4 to^{7 got examined one P' Narayana as DW3'} who was the then^{MandalRevenueOfficer, Moinabad, wherein} the original^{pattadar Konda SatayanarayanaReddygave} statement^{under Ex.X2. DW3 deposedthat Ex'X2 statement} was given by^{Konda SatyanarayanaReddy before him and the}

¶336

¶337

tlcP, r * 94 20Aq,1332, 1336& 1357 20Aa

¶338

same was recorded by him in his own hand writing and similarly he has recorded the statement of Mallamma, Veeraiah, Ramaiah under Ex.XS. Though plaintiff contended that Exs.X2 and X5 cannot be considered as admissible evidence, by considering the evidence of DW3, it can be said that Exs.X2 and X5 are genuine. Through this witness defendalt Nos.4 to 7 intended to prove that defendant No.1 has hled an application for regularisation of agreement sale under Section 5-A of the ROR Act. At the cost of repetition, it is made it clear that this court is not here to decide the title or ownership of defendant No. I^. over suil. 'A' schedule. property. The application of defepdant, No.,1,for regularip*iSn of aCfqeg-rgqt.qf , qJg.g,a,s_f1!gd before the MRO, Moinabad and the said application was rejected and aggrieved by the same, defendaol No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Offrcer, wherein the matter was remanded back to Mandal Revenue Officer, Moinabad for deciding the matter afresh based on the record. However, this Court has no jurisdiction to make comment on the above said aspects, more particularly in a suit hled by the plaintiff for partition.

¶339

e^{5.According to theevidence} of plaintiff/ PW I , during \ Jamabandi of Kanakamamidi, Konda Satyanarayana made a

¶340

¶341

s 94 2d)9,^{1332,1336& tisT 2ooa}

¶342

statement^{to the effect that sinceG'Venkaiahdied' the land is} to be^{given to his four sons and based on the said statementthe} names of four^{sons of G' Venkaiahwere entered in revenue} records. But^{surprisingly, the ptaintifffaiied to produce the said} StatementallegedtohavebeengivenbyKondaSatyanarayana before the^{MandalRevenue Offrcer,Moinabad' It isthe} contention^{of the plaintiff that after recording the statementof} K. Satyanarayana^{Reddy, their names were enteredand at that} time defendant^{No- 1was not called' InChinnam} Pandutangamv.MandalRevenueOfficer,serilingampally Mandal and^{othersle the High Court for erstwhile State of} Andhra : pradesh obsbrved .that thirl i language of Form-vlll in which the notice^{is required to be published cannot control the} interpretation^{of the substantive provision containedin Section} 5(3) , which,^{as mentionedabove,casts a dutyon the recording} authority to^{issue notice in writing to all persons whose names} are entered^{in the Recordof Rights and who are interestedin or} In the^presentcase, affected by^{the proposed amendment} over suit schedule^'A' though defendant^{No'lhas interest} property, notice^{was not issued to him before entering the} names^{of plaintiffand his other brothersin the revenue records}

¶343

re AIR 2OO8 Andhra Pradesh¹⁵

¶344

\ \

¶345

¶346

sa 94 20A9, 1332, 1336 & 1357 200u

¶347

in respect of suit schedule 'A' property, which is^{nothing but} violation of principles of natural^justice. On the other hand,^the defendant No.1 coulcl produce the statement under Ex.X2^given by original pattadar of plaint A' schedule^property i.e., Konda Satyanarayana before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Moinabad, wherein it was stated that he alienated plaint 'A' schedule property to defendant No. I for a sale consideration of Rs. 18O0/-

¶348

ln the present case, despite participating in the proceedings before the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer, Moinabad, the plaintiff failed to adduce any material to show that the statement given by Konda S.aR an.oyUn, Und..eJ EX,X2 .iq not -. true. Though Exs.X2 and X5 cannot bi considered as substantial evidence, they can be considered for corroborating or confronting it to the witnesses to elicit certain information. Though the ptaintiff contended that they did not get any opportunity to deny the statement given by Konda Satyanarayana under Ex.X2, the plaintiff got addressed a letter to the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer, Moinabad under Ex.Xl not to consider the statement of Konda Satyanarayana. Though plaintiff/ PW 1 admitted in his initia.l part of cross examination that he does not know whether K. Satyanarayana Reddy gave 1^{any evidencebefore} the MRO stating that he has sold the \

¶349

ai3

¶350

sa 94.-2009,1332, 1336& ll57 2UOa

¶351

property to Defendant No.l for Rs.1800/-, when PWl was confronted with statement of K. Satyanarayana Reddy under Ex.X2, he admitted that in response to Ex.X2 he along^with defendant No.3 submitted Ex.X1 to the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer, Moinabad not to consider trx.X2. Thus, it cannot be said^that plaintiff was not having an opportunity to deny the statement given by Konda Satyanarayana under Ex.X2.

¶352

The plaintiff as PWl pleaded ignorance about the^revenue records to show that his father cultivated the iands of^Konda Satyanarayana Reddy on lease. PW1 does not^{knowthe name} of his grandfather.. PW1 does not know the^{age of his father at} the time of death of his father. PWl does not^{know as to what} was the sale consideration paid by him for^{purchase. PW1} admitted that he came to know about the said^{facts on his own} as he has observed during his school^going days.^Giving importance to reiteration of observations during^{schooldays of} a person at the age of 75 years is of no use,^{more particularly,} when the plaintiff/PW1 has pleaded ignorance of^most of^the relevant facts. Moreover, the evidence of PWl^{is filled with lot of} omissions and contradictions and apart^{lrom that such} evidence is also not being^{corroboratedwith the evidence of} PW2 and DWl.

¶353

¶354

MAP, J s 94 2049, 1.732, t336& ]357 200A

¶355

Now coming to the financial capacity of G. Venkaiah to purchase the suit schedule^,A, propert5r, pW1 admitted that his father was an agriculturist and his father has no lands of his own prior to the subject lands and that his father was cultivating the lands of K. Satlzanarayana Reddy on lease. If at all father of PWl has purchased suit A, schedule propert5r from K. Satyanarayana Reddy, there was no necessit5r for father of PWl to cultivate the lands of K. Satyanarayana Reddy on lease and in fact he could have cultivated plaint A,schedule property. Furthermore, plaintiff pWl categorically admitted that he has not liled any document to show that his father had capacity to ,,.,,'.,,:,,, purchase suit 'A' schedule property. Moreover, pW f ,amti.J that defendant No.l and his wife were employees and earning sufhcient amount. When father of pWl is not having financial capacity to purchase suit A, schedule property, the probability or the presumption of imagining that G. Venkaiah i.e., father of PWl has purchased suit^.A, schedule property from Konda Satyanarayana Reddy is very remote, more particularly, when original patteda-r Konda Satyanarayana Reddy gave statement before Mandal Revenue Ofhcer that he has alienated the suit A, schedule propert5z to defendant No- I for a valid sale consideration. Apart from that pWl also deposed that one of

¶356

-..-

¶357

¶358

MEP, J s 94 2@9,^{13i2,l.l.16 &1357 20r,4}

¶359

the attestors^{to Ex.Bl i.e., KattulaRamaiah is his relative'In} such circumstances,^{there is no necessityfor KattulaRamaiah} to stand against^{plaintiff,wifeof defendant No'2and defendant} No.3, more^{particularly whenhe is relative to PWl' Further'} Konda Satyanarayana^{Reddy, who is the originalpattedarof} suit A' scheduie^{property and also a third party to the suit' has} no necessit5/ to^{speak falsehoodagainstthe plaintiff' Since} Konda Satyanarayana^{Reddy has received sufficient sale} consideration^{from defendantNo'l, he was compelled to state} before the Mandal^{RevemreOfficer about the transaction} between himself and^{defendantNo' 1'} However' Konda Satyanarayana^{Reddy was not alive Lry the time of trial} Perhaps that^{might be the reasonwhy his evidencecould not be} secured by the triai^{Court. Insuch circumstances' the} statement of Konda^{Sat5ranarayana Reddywas considered for} corroborative PurPose.

¶360

When it is the^{specilic contention of the plaintiff that suit} schedule 'A'^{property was acquired by his father from Konda} a SatSranarayana,^{the plaintiff ought to have mentionedin the} plaint about the^{said aspect.Thoughthe plaintiff admittedin} his cross examination^{that he disclosedin his pleadingsabout} the purchase^{of A' schedulepropertyfrom K- Sat5/narayana}

¶361

\ \

¶362

3t)

¶363

MGP' J sa 94 2009, 1332, 1336& 1357_2(n8

¶364

Reddy, on careful perusal of the entire plaint, there is no such whisper. Further, the plaintiff averred in the plaint that defendant No.1 has created unregistered sale deed. However, the plaintiff did not make any efforts to file any rejoinder to deny the above said two aspects and thereby make averments in the rejoinder that Konda Saffanarayana Reddy has alienated the suit A' schedule property to G. Venkaiah and that his brother defendant No.1 has created unregistered sale deed. It is settled law that no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into.

¶365

It is the specific contention of the appellants herein that the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of G. Venkaiah. It is pertinent to note that plaintiff admitted in his cross examination thal during the life time of his father, they had raised the issue of partition. When the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of a father, it is very strange ald surprising as to how a son can seek partition of self acquired properties of his father that too during the life time of his father.

¶366

A self acquired property can become ancestral property if it is thrown into the pool of ancestral properties and enjoyed in

¶367

¶368

¶369

so,94^{2OO9, 1332,1336 & 13572OO8}

¶370

common.^{But no proof is filedby the plaintiff to show that suit} schedule 'A'^{property was purchased by G' Venkaiahand after} his demise the^{said property was being enjoyed by all the} descendants^{of G. Venkaiahjointly' PW1 admittedin his cross} examination^{that as the name of Venkaiah is shownas pattadar} in the revenue^{records,he filed the suit for partition basingon} theordersoftheMRo.ButintheCauseofactionparainthe plaint, it was^{averred that the cause of actionarose on} 23.O4.lggi^{and whereasthe plaint was hled in the year 1999'} But even as^{per the plaintiff,the name of G' Venkaiah is} appearing in^{the revenue recordssince 1954-1955'If at all the} contention of^{plaintiffthat the suit filed by him wasbased-o-n.'} the entry of^{name of his fatherin revenue records' lhen plaintiff} ought to^{have filed the suit for partitionimmediatelyafter the} demise of his^{father G. Venkaiahin the year1976 but there is} no such instance.^{Evenas per the own documentof plaintiff} under Ex.A15^{pahani patrikafor the year 1988-89the name of} defendant^{No. 1 along with his brothers were shown and the} nature of^{property was shownas self acquired' Further'Ex'AS} produced by^{the plaintiff disclosesthe name of defendant No'1} and the^{natureof the property was shown as self acquired'}

¶371

The^{sole plaintiff relied upon the evidence of PW2 to}

¶372

\ \

¶373

NA?, J s 9.1 2(n9,1332, 1336& t357-2OOa

¶374

establish his case. PW2 is the farm servant of Konda Sa\ranarayana Reddy and served for 25 years. In the chief examination, PW2 deposed that he came to know that PW¹ purchased the suit land from Konda Sat5ranarayana Reddy. This statement of PW2 is quite contrary to the contention of the plaintiff that the suit A' schedule property was purchased by his father G. Venkaiah. The evidence of PW2 also disclose that as defendant No. 1 and his wife were doing^jobs in city, they used to look after plaintiff, wife of defendant No.2, defendant No.3 and also defendant Nos.8 to 11. Further, DWl, who is sailing along with plaintiff, admitted that he heard about Konda Sat5ranarayana Reddy giving a statement before MRO that he sold A' schedule property to defendant No. 1. Thus, the evidence of DW I is supporting the case of defendant No. 1 rather than the case of plaintiff and other defendants. There was no document to show the transfer of ownership ol title and possession of the suit 'A' schedule propert5r from Konda Sat5ranarayana Reddy to G. Venkaiah i.e., father of PWr /plaintiff.

¶375

Though it was argued by learned counsel for the appeliant in S.A.No. 1336 of 2008 that Konda Sat5ranarayana Reddy being a Village Patwari, he got created the documents in his favour,

¶376

¶377

sa 94_2OO9,1332, 1336 & 1357_2048

¶378

no evidence is adduced to that extent. Admittedly, Konda Satayanarayana Reddy is the originai pattadar of suit schedule A'property and he is a third party to the suit. G. Venkaiah and his son i.e., defendant No.1 are third parties to Konda Sat5ranarayana Reddy. In such circumstarces, he is least bothered as to whom the propertSr is to be sold. He is only concerned with the person, who is ready and willing to pay sale consideration to purchase his propert5r. Since defendalt No. 1 paid sale consideration, Konda Satyanarayana Reddy stood in favour of defendant No. 1.

¶379

I+r -his cross. examination;. PWI admitted.that basing on the orders of MRO, he has filed the "uit. A" per fhe version of plaintiff, name of G. Venkaiah is shown as occupier of suit schedule property in Ex.Al and there.is also no doutrt that Khasra Pahani would serve the purpose of a deed of title. When the name of G. Venkaiah is reflected in Khasra Pahani, which is equivalent title deed under Ex.Al since 1953-54, there is no explanation on behalf of plaintiff as to what prevented him to wait till passing of the orders by MRO in filing the present suit. The plaintiff ought to have liled the suit much prior to passing of the orders by MRO by relying on Ex.Al rather than liling the suit based on MRO proceedings. This intention of plaintiff \ I

¶380

¶381

waiting till passing of orders by MRO to file partition suit, draws an adverse inference against him about genuineness of Ex.A 1 .

¶382

Learned counsel for the appellants in S.A.No.1357 of 20O8 relied upon a decision in yadarao Dajiba Shrawane (deadf by LRs v. Nanilal Harakchand Shah (deadf and others2o wherein the Honourable Apex Court observed that when the judgment of the final court of fact is based on misinterpretation of documentary evidence or not consideration of inadmissible evidence or ignoring material evidence, the High Court in second appeal is entitled to interfere. It is settled that admission of parties or their witnesses are releva{.lt pieces of evidence and should be given due weightage by court. A finding of fact ignoring such admissions or concessions is vitiated in law and can be interfered with by the High Courts in second appeal. A similar view was taken by the Honourable Apex Court in Krishna Mohan Kul alias ltani Charan Kul and another v. Pratima Maity and others2t. Learned counsel for the plaintiff while arguing that when findings of the court below are based upon inadmissible evidence, a substantial question of law arises and in such case interference with findings of facts is permitted,

¶383

,o (2OO2l 6 Supremc Court Cases 404 2r (2004) 9 Supreme Court Cases 468

¶384

.11

¶385

e 94^{200a, 1332, 1336& 13572004}

¶386

relied upon^{decisions of the Honourabie Supreme Courttn} IshwarDassJain(dead|throughLRsv.SohanLal(dead)by LRs22,P.Chan&ashekaranandothersv'S'Kanakarajanand others23,HeroVinothv'seshammal2a'Boodireddy Chandraiah^{and others v' ArigelaLaxmi and others2s and} State of^{Rajasthan and othersv' Shiv Dayal and others26 In} Malluru^{Mallappav. Kuruvathappa2T the Apex Courtobserved} thatevenwhenthelrrstappellatecourtaffirmsthejudgmentof thetrialCourt,itisrequiredtocomplywiththerequirementof Order 41^{rule 31 and non-observanceof this requirementleads} to inhrmity^{in the judgment of the ftrst appellate courtNo} doubt,^{when iire appeilate'courtagrees with"t1re views of the} trial courl^{on evidence, it need not restate effect of cvidence or} reiterate^{reasons given by the trial court'Expressionof a} general agreement^{with the reasonsgiven by the trial court} would ordinarilY^suffice'

¶387

In^{MuaiciPal Committee'HoshiarPurv. PunjabState} Electdcity^{Boardarrd others2sthe Honourable Suprerne Court} observedthatifafindingoffactisarrivedatbyignoringor

¶388

,, MANU/SC/0747l 1999

¶389

,3 2oo7 {5) SCC 669

¶390

,1 MAliu lsc 12774 /2006

¶391

5 MANU/SC/3839/2007

¶392

," MANU/SC/ lO92l2019

¶393

,, l2O2Ol4 Supreme court Cases^313,

¶394

iZOtO; tS Supt nte CourtCases2lt)

lvaP, r * 94 2Ot)9, t332, 1336 & 1357_2OOa

¶399

excluding relevant materiai or by taking into^{consideration} irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously^defieslogic as to suffer from vice of irrationali8 incurring the^{blame of} being perverse, then the finding is rendered inlirm in the eye^of the law. If the findings of the Court are based on no evidence^or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable or evidence^{that suffers} from the vice of procedure irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person would have arrived at those^findings, then the hndings may be said to be^{perverse. Further,} if^the findings are either ipse diit of the Court or based on conjecture and surmises, the^judgment suffers from the additional inhrmity of non-application of mind and thus, stands vitiated.

¶400

In Abdul Ghani Memorial Trust and others v. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board aad others2e the Honourable Apex Court observed that if the frrndings passed by the first appellate court are vulnerable, it is open to the High Court in the course of exercise ol pox.ers under Section 1OO of the CPC to set aside the findings and it is always open to the High Court to call for a finding from the lower Appellate Court whilst retaining the appeal with itself if it is considered necessall adduce further

¶401

\ ,e MANU/SC/0027/ l9a7

¶402

.13

¶403

sa^{942OO9,1332' 13'16& )3572OOA}

¶404

evidence.^{lt was furtherobservedthat if the additional evidence} which the^{High Courtconsidersit appropriate to receiveeven at} the stage^{of a second appeal in accordancewith law is in the} form of a^{documentand does not require any formalproof' the} High Court^{can receiveadditionalevidenceitself and proceedto} determine^{the matter in accordancewith law'But in the} present case,^{there is no instance of any additional evidence} and the^{onlyissueto be dealt in these Appealsis whether the} plaintiff could^{establish on his own strengththat suit 'A"} schedule^{property is self acquiredproperty of G' Venkaiah'} Thus, the^{facts stated in} -th9.abo11 31ia^{{eiislon cannottre} made applicable^{to the fucts of the presentcase'}

¶405

In^{SantoshHazari v' PurushottamTiwari(deceasedl by} LRsgo the^{Honourable Supreme Court observed that the first} appellate^{court is also a final court of law in the sense that its} decision^{on a question of law even if erroneousmay not be} vulnerable^{beforethe High Court in second appeal because the} jurisdiction of the^{High Courthas now ceased to tre available to} correct^{the errors of law or the erroneous findings of the first} appellate^{court even on question of law unless such question of}

¶406

30 (2O01) 3 SuPreme^{CourtCases179} \ ,

¶407

¶408

MCP, J s 94 2d)9, t332, t336&^{1357 2004}

¶409

law be a substantial one. In Somakka ldead) by^legal representatives v. K.P. basavaraj^(dead| by^legal representatives3l the Honourable Supreme Court^obsewed that the^judgment of the appellate court shall be in^{writing and} would include the points for determination, the decision thereon, the reasons for the decision and where^the decree^is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. Though several grounds were raised by the appellants, none of the grounds were appearing to be based on substantial^question of law, more particularly, when the appellants failed to establish that'suit 'A' schedule property is a^joint family^property and liabte for partition. Though, it is contended by thg appqtlgn!,s .,, that the learned hrst appellate Court has passed the impugned Judgment only based on inadmissible under Exs.Bl, 82, Xl, X2, X3 and X5, such judgment is appearing to have been passed in proper perspective as the said judgment is based on valid and sufficient grounds/reasons and al1 other relevant aspects.

¶410

In Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. SAU. Sumanbai

¶411

31 {2022) 8 scc 261 \

¶412

¶413

.15

¶414

sd 94^{2009, 1332.1336&13s7 2oo8}

¶415

Pandurang Petkar^{andothers32 the HonourableApex Court} observed that^{jurisdiction undersecondappeal not to be} exercised merely^{becausean alternate view is possible lt was} observed in Hamida^{v. Mohd. Khalil33that whileexercising} jurisdiction under Section 1O0^{of the Code of Civil Procedure'} cannot reverse^{the findingsof the lower appellatecourt on facts} merely on the^{ground that on the facts found by the lower} appeilate court^{anotherview was possible'This positionwas} reiterated by Avtar^{Singhand Others v'Bimla Deviand} others3a.^{However,there are certain exceptionsto the rule as} pointed out by the^{Apex Court inNazirMohamedv'J'} Kamalass as under: '^"

¶416

"33.4. The^{generalrule is, ttnt tlle HighCourt rt.tillnot} interfere with^{the cincurrent} findings^{of. the courts} .belolo'^{But it is} not Ln absolute^{rule. Someof the uetlrecognised exceptionsare} ineie: 14 tte^{courts below hiue ignored material euidenceor acted} in no ika.nn;^{(ii) the courts haue drawnwronginferencesJrom} proued facts bg applying^{the lau e:noneouslg;} .or^{(i\ the courishaue} iro"gtA clst^{;he^bu;de;of proof' A decision based on no euidence'} does'iot rekr onlg^{to caieswhere there is a totdl dearlh of} euidence, bit^{also refersto case, utheretheeu{dence'takenas a} u.rhole, ii rwt reasonibty^{capabteof supportingtle finding'"}

¶417

ln a second^{appeal,the jurisdiction of the HighCourt} being confined^{to substantiai question of law, a findingof fact is} not open to challenge^{in secondappeal,even if the appreciation}

¶418

,r, 2023 Uve Law (SC) 821 r3 (2010) 12 SCC 74O

¶419

Y 1202r lJ SCC 816

¶420

¶421

\ " izozoi^{re scc s7} t

¶422

.r6

¶423

lnoP, J s_94 2(n9, 1332, 1336&, t357,2004

¶424

of evidencc is palpably erroneous and the finding of^fact incorrect as held in V. Ramachandra Ayyar v.^Ramalingam Chettiars6.

¶425

5 I . It is to be seen that in the present Appeals, it is^{not the} case of 'concurrent findings' but in fact it is 'reversing finding'. There is no doubt that the first appellate court has given credence to Exs.B 1 ar:d 82 while passing the^{judgment in} A.S.No.8 of 2OO7. Ex.B1 being an agreement of sale not duly stamped is inadmissible in evidence to consider the title of^a party over immovable property. But as can be seen from Ex.B1, possession of suit schedule IAl properff .was .n9t--de,livered b5r^: Konda Satyanarayana Reddy to defendant No. 1. The High Court for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh in B. Bhaslcor

¶426

Reddg u. Bommireddy Pattabhi Rami Reddg (dted) per LRs and others.T observed that wherever the agreement holder is not in possession of the property under agreement of sale, even though there is a recital in the agreement as to delivery of possession, he need not pay proper stamp duty as required. Even otherwise, as discussed supra, this Court is not here to decide the ownership of defendant No.l over suit 'A' schedule \ \

¶427

5 AIR 1963 SC 302

¶428

3? 2010 (6) Al,D 307

¶429

¶430

¶431

MGP''] * 94 2009, 1332, 1i36& 1357 2AA8

¶432

property. Though the learned first appellate gone to the extent of deciding the ownership of defendant No.l based on Exs.Bl and 82, the oniy point that is to be adjudicated is whether suit A' schedule property is joint family property or not, more particularly, in a suit for partition filed by the plaintiff. It is settled law that plaintiff has to stand or fa1l on his own legs and he cannot rely on the weakness of the defendants in establishing his case.

¶433

The background of the defendants disputing Khasra Pahani and the subsequent documents by contending that G. Venkaiah has no fihancial capacity to purchase the sdid tand and Lhere is any amounr o[ suspicion about the entries in the said documents, the initiai burden is always on the plaintiff to estabiish to the satisfactorion of the Court that the said lald which is A' schedle property has been purchaseed by iate G. Venkaiah in his name from its original owner/ pattedar. However, to establish and substantiate that aspect of the matter, the plaintiff for the reasons best known to him has not placed any acceptable material on record to demonstrate that late G. Venkaiah entered into any agreement of sale^{(either oral} or written) with Konda Sa{ranarayana Reddy to^purchasethe said land for a valid sale consideration. Further, except^Ex.A1

¶434

.2.2' i

¶435

¶436

MGP. J e 94 2009, 1332, 1336 & 1357 200A

¶437

Khasra Pahani, no other regular registered sale deed is filed by the plaintiff to show that suit A' schedule property has been purchased by late G.Venkaiah in his name by way of registered sale deed. Moreover, the original owner of the said iand by name Konda Sat5zanarayan Reddy gave statement before the Mandal Revenue Officer under Ex.X2 and specifically stated that he sold the property in favour of defendant No. 1 for a sale consideration and also delivered possession of the property. The testimony of original owner has not been specifically contradicted by the plaintiffs nor any admissions are elicited that the said property was not sold to defendant No. l.

¶438

When the plaintiff on whom the burden lies has failed to establish as to the mode of purchase of the said land by late G. Venkaiah from Konda Sat5zanarayana Reddy, the appellants herein cannot claim suit A' schedule propert5z as joint family property. It is no doubt true that Khasra pahani can be considered as title deed, but having regard to the peculiar circumstances of this case and in the background of the strong defence put forth by the defendants, so also the testimony of Sagralarayana Reddy, this Court is not inclined to place any reliance on Exs.A1, A13 and A14 and as a consequence thereof, the only inevitable inference that can be drawn is that the

¶439

¶440

s4 94 2oot,^{1332,133b& 13572004}

plaintiff failed to^{establishthat his father G' Venkaiah has} purchased suit A'^{scheduleproeprtyfrom his own funds'} Moreso,whenthereisnoproofofthefinancialcapacityor sourceofincomeofG.VenkaiahtopurchaseplaintA,schedule property, this^{Court is not inclined to believe the verson of the} plaintiff that^{plaint'A' schedulepropertyis also joint family} property and^{is liablefor partition' The {irst appellate court has} considered^{the entire gamet of the controversywith referenceto} thematerialavailableonrecordinproperperspectiveandhas rightly held^{that scheduleA' propert5r is not joint family} property.^Thelefore, gven^{though there i1 no regularregrstered} sale deed^{obtained by defendantNo'1 in pursuance of Ex'B1} but by that^{itself it would not establish the caseof the plaintiff} that plaint^{A' schedule property is a joint famiiy property'} 54. Having^{considered the entire materialavailabieon record'} rivalcontentionsandalsothefindingsrecordedbytheiearned first Appellate^{Court, this Court finds no ground or reason} warranting interference^{with the said findingsin an Appeal filed} under Section^{100 of the Code of CivilProcedure'Hence'these} Second^{Appeals deserve to be dismissedas devoid of merits'}

¶445

55 In the result,^{these second appeais are dismissed'} There

¶446

¶447

'ucz,t so 91 2oot, 1332, 1336 & 1337 2008

¶448

¶449

shall be no order as to costs

¶450

As a sequcl, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

¶451

shall stand closed

¶452

Sd,- M. RAMANA^KRISHNA DEPYTY^REGISTRAR

¶453

// TRUE^COPY//

¶454

SECTION^{SECTI ON OFFICER}

¶455

¶456

l.TheSeniorCivilJudgeatVikarabad,RangaReddyDistrict 2. The Junior^{CivilJudge at Chevella' RangaRgildyDistrict'} ;. d;-cCi;^{srii. nr-r-lr*nAMESH Advocate [oPUC]}

¶457

One^{CC to SRl. MARIE DESAIAdvocate [OPUC]}

¶458

One^{CC to M/s. G' POORNASRIAdvocate IOPUC]}

¶459

One^{CC to SRl. P. VINAYAKASWAMYAdvocate [OPUCI}

¶460

One^{CC to Sri A. NARASIMHA REDDY'Advocate (OPUC)}

¶461

One^{CC to Sri R. BALASUBRAMANYAM'Advocate (OPUC)} 9. One^{CC to Smt. RACHNAS WADDEPALLI'Advocate (OPUC)} 10.Two^{CD CoPies}

kul/gh @

"'1(r

HIGH COURT

DATED:23/08/2024

COMMON JUDGMENT

S IAr€
1 6E
(
q
f
0 5 0E[ 2021 a
o
DESPAT

¶468

SECOND APPEAL Nos : 94 OF 2009. 1332,¹ .1357 0F 2008

¶469

DISMISSING THE ALL SECOND APPEALS

¶470

WITHOUT COSTS

¶471

¶472

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶473

AT HYDERABAD

¶474

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST

¶475

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶476

PRESENT

¶477

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶478

SECOND APPEAL NO: 94 OF 2009 1332 1336 1357 0F 2008

¶479

s.A. NO. 94 0F 2009 :

¶480

Between:

¶481

G.Peter, S/o, Late Gungur Venkaiah Retd. Employee H.No. l-'1 , Kanakamarnidi village, Moinabad Madnal, Rangareddy District.

¶482

...Petitioner/ Plaintiff

¶483

AND

¶484

Sri. G.Allen, S/o. Late G. Harris Retd. Govt Sev., R/o. H.No. 99, Pragathi Nagar, Opp J.N.T.U., Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶485

Sri. G.Paranjyothi, S/o. Late G.Harris Occ: Service! H.No. 1-B-718, Nallakuhta, Hyderabad.

¶486

Sri. G.Rathna Raj, S/o. Late G.Harris, aged about 52 years, Occ: Service StFrancis High School, Zaheerabad, Medak District.

¶487

Sri. G.George, S/o. Late G.Harris Service R/o. No.22205, Type ll, Ordinance Factory, Yeddu Mailaram Medak District. .. Respondents/ Appellants/ Defendant Nos. 4 to 7

¶488

Smt. G,Rajamma, Wo. Late G.Elia House wife R/o. Kanakammamidi Village, Moinabad Revenue Mandal, R.R.District.

¶489

Sri. G.Vinod Kumar, S/o. Late G.Venkaiah, Occ: Business R/o. H.No. 6-31261124, Methodisat Colony, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶490

7 Smt. Mariya, Wo. Dr. Jashwanth Rao Samuel (Died)per LRs RR 11 to 13 ,Plot^{No. 10} and 11, Himagiri Colony, Gandham Ghada Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶491

Smt. Martha, Wo. G John (died ) per LRs RR 15, 16 R/o. 5-9-176, Opp Stanly Gids High School, Chapal Road, Hyderabad.

¶492

Smt. V.Kamala, Wo. Jayapal( died ) per LR Respondent No. 14 R/o. H.No. 6-3-12161 124, Kundanbagh, Hyderabad.

¶493

Smt. G.Santhoshamma, Wo. Dr. J.J.Luke Occ H.No. 5-8-50/4, Fateh Sultan Lane, Hyder:abad. ( died Per LRs 17 lo 2O I

¶494

1 1, Dr.Jaswanth Rao Samuel, S/o Late Samuel Jude, Aged about 82 years, Occ: Nil, R/o Plot No 10 and11. Himagiri Colony, Gandham Ghuda Villa'ge, Rajendranagar l\rlandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶495

12.9olomon li;ay Rao, S/o.Dr.Samuel Jaswanth Rao, Aged about 59 years, Occ NlL, R/o.Plot No 10 and 11, Himagiri Colony, Gandham Ghuda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District Piesently residing at Flat No.1621U1304, Plot No.116, United Elite Apartments, On 100 Ft. Rd.,^phase 1, KavuriHills, JubileeHills, Next to SBINRI Branch, GHMC, Hyderabad, Telanga na-500033

¶496

13.Samuel Sunder Rao, S/o Dr,Sarnuel Jaswanth Rao, Aged about 5g years, Occ NlL, R/o.Plot No 10 and ll,Himagiri Nagar, Andham Ghada Viltage, Rajendranagar Mandal. VUay Bank, Gandhamguda, Hydershahkole, Hyderabad 500091 (Respondents no. 11 to^'13 are LRS of Respbndent no.7).

¶497

( Respondent Nos. 11to 1{ are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Respondent No.'7 vide Court Order dated 16-03-2023 in l.A.No.3 ot 2023 |

¶498

Harini Mridula Rao,, Wo. Solomon Vrjay Rao, D/o Late Smt. V. Kamala, Flat No. 1-62lU/304, Plot No. 1'16, United Elite Apartments, On^'100 Ft. Rd., phase 1, Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills, Next to SBI NRI Branch, GHMC, Hyderabad, Telangana 500033. (Respondents no. 11 are LRS of Respondeht no.9).

¶499

(Respondent No. 14 is brought on record as per LR of the deceased Respondent No. 9 vide Court Order dated 16-03-2023 in l.A.No. 9 of 2023)

¶500

15.G. Srinivas, S/o G. John, Aged about 60 years, Occ Business, R/o. H. No. 5- 9-176, Opp Stanley Girls High School, Chapel Road, Hyderabad.

¶501

Smt. Subhashini, Dio. G. John, Wo Joel, Aged 55 years, Occ Household, R/o H.No. 5-9-176, Opp Stanley Girls High Schoot,Chalet Road, Hyderabad.

¶502

(Respondent Nos. 15 and 16 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Respondent No. 8 vide Court order dated 16-03-2023 in l.A.No. 6 of 2023 )

¶503

Manoranjan-Luke, S/o Late Dr. John Jayaraj Luke, Aged about 48 years, R/o. H.No. 5-B-50/A, Fathe Sultan Lane, Hyderabad.

¶504

1B {jay Rajkumar Luke, S/o. Late Dr John Jayaraj Luke, Aged about 43 years, R/o. H.No q q-5_0ft, Fathe Sultan Lane, N'amp-ally Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad G.P O., Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 5d0001.

¶505

Vikram.Benja1ln L!kg, S/o. Late Dr. John Jayaraj Luke, Aged about46 years, R/o H.No 5-8-50/4, Fathe Sultan Lane, Hyderab-ad.

¶506

Deepti Ada Luke, Aged about 52 years, R/o. H.No. 5-8-50iA, Fathe Sultan Lane, Hyderabad. (Respondents no 1 1 to 14 are LRS of Respondent no.10).

¶507

(Respondent Nos. 17 to 20 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Respondent No. 10 vide Court order dated 16-03-2023 in l.A.No. 12 of 20231

¶508

...RESPONDENTS

¶509

Appeal Under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 20-10-2008 in A.S.No. 8 of 2007 on the fite of the Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad , Ranga Reddy District preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 05-01-2007 in O.S. No. 54 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.

¶510

DECREE: This Second Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, the Judgments and Decree of the Lower Appellant Court and the Court of the First instance and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ALLAM RAMESH,Advocate for the Appellant and of M/S. G. POORNASRI, advocate for the

¶511

Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri P. VINAYAKA SWAMY, Advocate for Respondent No. 6 and Sri MARIE DESAI, Advocate for Respondent Nos. l1 lo 13 , 17 to 20.

¶512

SECOND APPEAL NO:^'1332 OF 2008

¶513

Between:

¶514

G.Vinod Kumar, S/o Late G.Venkaiah, business R/o.H.No. 6-3-126/124. Methodist Colony, Begumpet, Hyderabad. .. AppellanU3'd Respondent / 3'd Defendant

¶515

,AND

¶516

1: G. Allen,'S/o: Late G.Hanis Retired Govt. Servant R/o. H.No. 99, pragath Nagar, Opp. JNTU Kukatpally, hyderabad.

¶517

G.Paranjyothi, S/o. Late Harris Service H.No. 1-8-7'18, Nallakunta, Hyderabad

¶518

G.Rathna Raj, S/o. Late Hanis Pvt. Service St. Francis high School, Zaheerabad, lVledak District.

¶519

G.Georg, S/o. Late G. Harris Service R/o. No. 22205, fype ll, Ordinance Factory, Yedu Mailaram, lt/ledak District. .. Respondents/ Appellants i Defendants 4 to 7

¶520

G.Peter, S/o. Late Gunjus Venkaiah Service H.No. 5-9-'175, chappal Road, Hyderabad. .. RespondenU Respondent No.1 / Plaintiff

¶521

G.Rajamma, ( died )

¶522

Smt. Mariya, Wo. Dr. Jashwanthrao Samuel Occ: Nill, Plot No. 10 and 11, Himagiri Colony, Gandham Ghada Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District. (died per LRs RR 11 to 13 )

¶523

8 mt. Martha, Wo. G.John R/o. 5-9-176, Opp. Stanly Girls High School,

¶524

Chapal Road, Hyderabad. ( Died per LRs RR 14,15)

¶525

9 Sm! V.Kamala, Wo. Jayapal R/o. H.No. 6-3-1216t124. Kundanbagh. Hyderabad ( Died ) per LR R - 16

./7

.l 10 Smt G.santhoshamma, W/o. Dr J.J Luke H.No. 5-B-50/A, Fateh Sultan Lane, Hyderabad. (died per LRs RR 17 to^.19

¶530

¶531

l l.Jashwanthrao Samuel, S/o. Late Samuel Jude, aged about 73 years, Occ Nil, R/o. Plot No 10 and 1 1, Himagiri Colony, Gandhamguda, Hydersha Kote, Hyderabad.

¶532

12.Samuel Sunder Rao, S/o. Jashwanthrao Samuel, aged about 50 years, Occ Nil, R/o. Plot No 10 and 11, Himagiri Colony, Gandhamguda, Hydersha Kote, Hyderabad.

¶533

'l3.Soloman Vijay Rao, S/o. Jashwanthrao Samuel, aged about 50 years, Occ Nil, R/o. Plot No 10 and 11, Himagiri Colony, Gandhamguda, Hydersha Kote, Hyderabad.

¶534

(RR 1 1 to 13 are lrought on record as LRs of the deceased as per the order of the Hon'ble Court in SAMP No. 51 of 2013, dated 13.6.2013)

¶535

14.G. Srinivas, S/o Late Smt M. Martha and Late G. John, Aged about 60 years, Occ Business,.R/o H No. 5-9-176, Opp Stanley Girls High3chool, Chapal Road, and Hyderabad.

¶536

Smt Subhashini, D/o Late Smt. M. Martha and Late G. John, Wo Joel, Aged about 55^years. Occ: House wife, R/o H.No. 5-9-'176, Opp Stanley Giris U-igh School, Chapal Road, and Hyderabad.

¶537

(_Respondent Nos. 14 and 15 are brought on record as per LRs ofthe deceased Respondent No. I vide Court Order dated 15:2-2023 in l.A.No. 3 of 2023 |

¶538

Harini Mridula Rao, Wo. Solomon Vijay Rao, D/o Late Smt. V. Kamala Flat No, 1-62lU/304, Ptot No. 116, United Etite Apartments,On 100 Ft. Rd., phase 1, Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills, Next to SBI NRI Branch, GHMC, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500033

¶539

(Respondent No. 16 is brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Respondent No. 8 vide Court order dated 15--02-2023 in l.A.No. 6 of 2023)

¶540

'17 Manoranjan Luke. S/o. Late Dr. John Jayaraj Luke, Aged about 48 years, R/o. H.No. 5-8-50/4. Fathe Sultan Lane, Hyd6rab-ad.

¶541

lB.Ajay Rajkumar Luke, S/o. Late Dr. John Jayaraj Luke, Aged about 43 years, R/o. H.No 5-8-50/7, Fathe Sultan Lane, Ndmpilly Statio"n Road, Nam[al[,' Hyderabad G.P O., Hyderabad, Andhra^prad6sh - SOOOOt .

¶542

Vikram_Benjamin Luke, S/o. Late Dr. John Jayaraj Luke, Aged about 46 years, R/o. H.No 5-8-50/4, Fathe Sultan Lane, Hlderabad.

¶543

(_Respondent Nos. 1 7 to 19 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Respondent No. 10 vide Court order dated 15-02-2023 in l.A.No. 9 ot 20231

¶544

...RESPONDENTS

¶545

Appeal Under Section 100 of CpC against the decree and Judgment dated 20-10-2008 in A.s.No. 8 of 2007 on the file of the court of the

¶546

¶547

,/ Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District preferred against the I Judgment and decree dated 05-01-2007 in O.S.No. 54 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.

¶548

DECREE :This Second Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, the Judgments and Decree of the Lower Appellant Court and the Court of the First instance and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri R. BALA SUBRAIVIANYAM, Advocate for the Appellant and of M/s. G. POORNASRI, Advocate for the Respondent Nos 1 to 4 and Sri A. NARASIMHAREDDY, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 14, 15

¶549

SECOND APPEAL NO: 1336 OF 2008

¶550

Between

¶551

Smt. lrlaria, Wo. Dr. Jashwanthrao Samuel R/o. Plot No. 10 and^'1 1, Himagiri Colony, Andham Ghada Village, Rajendranagar [t/andal, Ranga Reddy District.(D|ED)per LRs RR Nos. 4 to 6

¶552

2 Sm! V.Kamal, Wo. Jayapal R/o. H.no. 6-3-12161124 Kundanbagh, Hyderabad. (died ) per LR Respondent No. 7

¶553

Smt. G.Santhoshamma, W/o. Dr. J.J.Luke R/o. H.No. 5-B-50/A, Fathe Suiltan Lane, Hyderabad.( died )per LRs 8 to11

¶554

Dr. Jaswanlh Rao Samuel, R/o. Plot No. 10 & 11, Himagiri Colony, Andham Ghada Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Disfict.

¶555

Solomon Vijay Rao, S/o. Dr. Samuel Jaswanth Rao, Flat No. 1-62lU/304, Plot No. 1'16, United Elite Apartments, On 100 Ft. Rd., Phase^'1, Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills, Next to SBI NRI Branch, GHMC, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500033

¶556

Samuel Sunder Rao, S/o. Dr. Samuel Jaswanth Rao, R/o. Plot No. 10 86 11, Himagiri Nagar, Andham Ghada Village, Rajendranagar lt/landal, Vijaya Bank, Gandhamguda, Hydershahkote.

¶557

( Appellants No. 4 to 6 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Appellant No. 1 vide Court order dated 16-04-2012 in SAMPNo.'1980 of 20111

¶558

Harini lVlridula Rao, Wo. Solomon Vijay Rao, Flat No. 1-621U1304, Plot No. '1 16, United Elite Apartments, On 100 Ft. Rd., Phase 1, Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills, Next to SBI NRI Branch, GHIMC, Hyderabad, Telangana 500033

¶559

(Appellant No.7 is brought on record as per LR of the deceased Appellant No. 2 vide Court Order dated 08-02-2023 in l.A.No. 3 of 2023 |

¶560

B. Manoranjan Luke, S/o. Late Dr. John Jayaraj Luke,Aged about 48 years, R/o. H. No. 5-8-50/4, Fathe Sultan Lane, Hyderabad.

¶561

9 Ajay Rajkumar Luke, S/o. Late Dr. John Jayaraj Luke, Aged about 43 years, R/o. H.No. 5-B-5017, Fathe Sultan Lane, Nampally Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad G.P.O., Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh - 500001.

¶562

¶563

1 0. Vikram Benjamin Luke, S/o. Late Dr. John Jayaraj Luke, Aged about 46 years, R/o. H. No. 5-8-50/4, Fathe Sultan Lane. Hyderabad.

¶564

'1 1. Deepti Ada Luke, Aged about 52 years, R/o. H.No. 5-B-50/A, Fathe Sultan Lane, Hyderabad.

¶565

(Appellant Nos. 8 to 11 are brought on record as per LRs of the deceased Appellant No. 3 vide Court Order dated 08-02-2023 in I.A.No. 6 oI 2023 |

¶566

...APPELLANTS

¶567

AND

¶568

G. Allen, S/o. Late G Harris Retired Govt. Servant R/o. H.No.99, Pragath Nagar, Opp. JNTU Kukatpally, hyderabad.

¶569

G.Paranjyothi, S/o Late Harris Service H.No. 1-8-718, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

¶570

G Ra'tna Raj, S/o. Late Harris Pvt. Service St. Francis high School. Zaheer abad, Medak District.

¶571

G.George, S/o. Late Harris Service R/o. No. 22205,Type ll, Ordinance Factory, Yedu Mailaram, Medak District. .. Respond6nts/ Appellants/ Defendants 4 to 7

¶572

9.Peter, S/o. Late Gunjus Venkaiah Service H.No. 5-9-175, chappal Road, Hyderabad. .. Respondent / Respondent Nb. 1 / Plaintiff

¶573

G.Rajamma, ( died on 17 -7 -2008 hence not necessary party)

¶574

9.Vinod Kumar, S/o. Late G.Venkaiah, Occ: business Rio.H.No. 6-3-126t124, Methodist Colony, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶575

([egpolQgnt No 3 in A.S.No. 2007 set aside party by order dt.31-10-2006 in l.A.No. 238/ 2006 in O.S.No . 54 tgs. Hence n6t neiceisary party in this Appeal)

¶576

B Qmt Martha, Wo. G.John R/o. 5-9-176, Opp. Stanty Girts High School, Chapal Road, Hyderabad.

¶577

( Respondent No. 7 is not necessary party in this appeal)

¶578

...RESPONDENTS/ Respondents 2, 3, 5/ Defendants 2,3,9

¶579

Appga! Under Section 100 of CPC against the decree and Judsment dated 20-10-2008 in A.S.No. 8 of 2007 on th-e file of the Gourt of the Senior Civil Judge, !ika1a-ba!, R11ga Rgdly District preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 05-01-2007 in O.S.No.54 of^'1995 on th6 file of the Cold of the Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.

¶580

DECREE :This second Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, the Judgments and Decree of the Lower Appellant court and the court of the First instance and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the

¶581

ryE{"

¶582

arguments of smt. RACHNA s WADDEPALLI Advocate for the Appellant and of trrl/s G. POORNASRI, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶583

SECOND APPEAL NO: 1357 OF 2008

¶584

Between:

¶585

1, Martha. Wo. G.John (died )per LRs 2 & 3 Occ: House hold R/o. 5-9-.176, Opp. Stanly Girls High School, Chapal Road, Hyderabad. .. Appellant / Respondent No.5/ Defendant No. 9

¶586

Gtrigilla Snnivas S/o. G. John , aged about 68 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. 5-9-176, Opp Stanly Girls High School, Chapiat Road, Abids, Hydbrabad

¶587

G. Subhashini Wo. S.K.Joel Kumar, aged aobut 65years, Occ: Housewife B/o^{Plot No.21H.No. 4-16-21} ,^{Himagirinagar 'Colony,Road No.1,} Gandhamguda, R.R.District - 500 091

¶588

'( Appellants No. 2 & 3 are broi.rght on iecord as per LRs of the deceased Sole Appellant, vide Court Order dated 20-01-2023 in l A.No. 2 of 2018)

¶589

...APPELLANTS

¶590

AND

¶591

1 G.Allen, S/o. Late G.Harris Retd. Govt. Servant R/o. H.No. 99, Pragathi Nagar, Opp J.N,T.U., Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶592

G.Paranjyothi, Sio. Late G.Harris Service H.No 1-B-718 Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

¶593

G.Rathna Raj, S/o Late G.Harris Pvt. Service St. Francis High School, Zaheerabad, Medak Distr"ict.

¶594

G.George, S/o. Late G.Harris Service R/o. H.No.22205, Type ll, Ordinance Factory Yeddu Mailaram, Medak District. .. Respondentsl Appellants/ Defendants No. 4 to 7

¶595

G.Peler, S/o. Late Gunlur Venkaiah Service Rio. H.No. 5-9-175, Chapal Road, Hyderabad. .. Respondent / Defendant No. 1/ Plaintiff

¶596

G Rajamma, Wo. Late G,EIia House wife Rlo. Kanakamamidi Village, Moinabad Revenue lt4andal, R.R.District.

¶597

G.Vinod Kumar, S/o. Late G Venkaiah business R/o. H.No. 6-3-1261124. lrilethodist Colony, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶598

Smt. Mariya, Wo. Dr. Jashwanth Road Samuel PIot No. 10 and 1'1, Himagiri Qolony,^{GandhamGhadaVillage, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy} District. ( died per LRs RR No. 11 to 13)

¶599

Sm!. V.Kamala, Wo. Jaypal R/o. H.No. 6-3-12161124 Kundanbagh, Hyderabad. (Died ) per LRs Respondent No. 14

¶600

Smt. G. Santhoshamma, Wo. Dr. J.J.Luke R/o H No. 5-8-50/4, Fateh Sultan Lane, Hyderabad. (Died per LRs RR Nos. 15 to 18)

¶601

Dr. Jashwanth Rao Samuel,^{S/o.Late Samuel Jade 86 Late Smt. tVlariya} Aged about 82 years. Occ^{Nil, R/ o. Plot No. 10 861 1, Himagiri C-o]qnVt} Gindham Ghuda Village,^{Raiendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District'}

¶602

l2.Solomon Vijay Rao, S/o^{Dr. Samuel JaswanthRao,Aged aboutS9 years,} Occ NlL, R/b.'Plot No.¹ 0^{86 1 1} ,^{Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy-.} District. Fresently residing^{at Flat N6 1-621u1304'Plot No.} .1-19,^qlitggEIIS. Apartments, On i o0 ft. dd^{. Phase-1, KavuriHills,Jubilee Hills. Next to SBI} NRI Branch, GHMC, Hyderabad.^{Telangana - 500 033}

¶603

13.Samuel Sunder Rao, S/o. Dr.^{Samuel JaswanthRao,Aged about 59 years,} Occ NlL, R/o. Plot No. 10 and^{'1 1, Himagiri Colony, GandhamGhudaVillage,} Rajendranagar lvlandal, Ranga^{Reddy District}

¶604

( Respondent Nos. 11 to 13 are brought on^{record as-per LRs^of.the} - -. leceised Respondent No. 8 vide^{Court Order dated02-03-2023in I'A'No'} 9 of 2023 )

¶605

Harini Mridula Rao, Wo Solomon^{Vijay Rao, FIat No.1-621U13O4, Plot No'} 116, United EliteApartments,^{On 100 Ft. Rd., Phase l, KavuriHills'J-qb^ilee} Hills, Next to SBI NRI Branch, GHMC,^{Hyderabad, Telangana- 500 033}

¶606

(Respondent No. 14 is brought on record^{as per LRs of the deceased} itesjondent No. 9 vide Couit^{order dated 02-03-2023in l.A.No.6 of2023)}

¶607

l/lanoranjan Luke, S/o. Late^{Dr. JohnJayarajLuke,Aged about 48 years, R/o'} H.No.5-B-50/A, Fathe Sultan Lane,^Hyderabad.

¶608

16.Ajay Rajkumar Luke, S/o.^{late Dr. John JayarajLuke,Aged about 43 years,} nio. U.No 5-8-50/7, Fathe Sultan^{Lane, Nampally Station Road, Nampally,} Hyderabad G.P O. Hyderabad^- 500⁰⁰¹

¶609

'lT.Vikram Benjamin Luke, S/o. late Dr. John Jayaraj Luke, Aged about 46^years' R/o. H.No. 5-B-50/A, Fathe Sultan^{Lane, Hyderabad}

¶610

'18. Deepti Ada Luke, Aged about 52 years, R/o. H.No. 5-B-50/A, Fathe Sultan Lane, Hyderabad.

¶611

( Respondent Nos. 15 to 18 are brought on.record qs^pq1t-!s-9[th.e^ -. ieceised Respondent No10^{vide Gourtorder dated 02-03-2023 in l.A.No.} 3 of 2023 ) ...RESPONDENTS

¶612

Appeal Under Section 100 of CPC^against the^{decree and} Judgment dated 20-10-2008^{in A.S.No.8 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the} Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad,^{Ranga Reddy District preferred against the} Judgment and decree dated^{05-01-2007in O.S.No. 54 of 1995 on the file of the} Court of the Junior Civil Judge,^{Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶613

DECREE : This Second Appeal coming^{on for hearing, upon perusing the grounds of} Appeal, the Judgments and Decree^{of the LowerAppellant Courtand the Court of} the First instance and the^{material papersin the suit and upon hearingthe} arguments of Sri A. Narasimha Reddy,^{Advocate for the Appellantand of Sri M/s.} G. Poornasri , Advocate for the^{RespondentNos. 1 to 4 and Sri Allam Ramesh,}

¶614

Advocate for Respondent No. 5 and Sri R. Bala Subramanyam, Advocate for / Respondent No. 7

¶615

This Court doth order and Decree as follows.

¶616

1 . That the all appeals be and hereby are dismissed and

¶617