OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BODHAN
Present:- Smt.A.Kanchana Reddy,
Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan.
Thursday, this the 23rd day of April, 2026
O.S.No.254 of 2023
(Old O.S.No.154 of 2019)
Between:-
1. Nimmapally Amruth Goud S/o.Nimmapally Srinivas Goud, aged about 19 years, Occ: Student.
2. Nimmapally Anvith Goud S/o.Nimmapally Srinivas Goud, aged about 22 years, Occ: Student Both are R/o.H.No.3-93, Kurnapally village, Yedapally Mandal, Nizamabad District.
... Plaintiffs
AND
1. Nimmapally Srinivas Goud S/o.Nimmapally Pedda Ganga Goud (died)
2. Makkala Poshetty S/o.Sailu, aged about 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Muthakunta village and Mandal, Nizamabad Dsitrict.
3. Nimmapally Yogeshwar Goud S/o.Gangadhar Goud, aged 27 years, R/o.Kurnapally village, Yedapally Mandal, Nizamabad District.
... Defendants
This original suit is coming on 17-04-2026 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri M.Sridhar Babu, learned Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri T.Narsimha Reddy, learned Advocate for the defendant No.2 and Sri M.Srinivas Rao, learned Advocate for the defendant No.3 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.This is a suit for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties in between the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the defendant
No.1 and for allotment of 1/3rd share to each plaintiffs with metes and bounds in respect of following properties:-
Page No. 1 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026
1) Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.367/2 and 368/5 admeasuring
Ac.0-20 gts each, totally Ac.1-00 gts compact in one block situated at Kurnapally village, Yedapally Mandal, Nizamabad District, bounded by;
East: Land of Sura Poshetty
West: Land of Pinnela Susheela
North: Land of Rama Swamy Goud
South: Land of Makkala Poshetty
2) Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.369/EE admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts situated at Kurnapally village, Yedapally Mandal, Nizamabad District, bounded by;
East: Land of Dasha Goud & D.Eshwari
West: Land of D.Eshwari
North: Land of Nagula Lasma Goud
South: Land of Makkala Nadipi Sailu (Hereinafter referred to as “Suit schedule properties”).
2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of defendant No.1 and grand sons of Late Nimmala
Pedda Ganga Goud S/o.Ganga Goud who is no more and died on 26.06.2013 leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 as his legal heirs and successors to the said deceased N.Pedda Ganga
Page No. 2 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026
Goud. The suit schedule properties are the joint Hindu undivided family properties and the plaintiffs are the co-owners. The deceased grandfather of the plaintiffs executed a registered gift deed in favour of defendant No.1 vide Doc.No.7040/2011, dated 14.12.2011 as the plaintiffs were minor but the defendant No.1 knowingly and wantedly in the absence of mother of plaintiff namely Nimmapally
Sravani who is the wife of defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 alienated the suit schedule properties in favour of the defendant
Nos.2 and 3 vide Doc.No.36/2017, dated 04.01.2017 and registered sale deed vide Doc.No.4708/2015 to knock away the legal share of the plaintiffs in the ancestral joint Hindu undivided family properties.
At that time the plaintiffs were minor and their next friend and guardian was at abroad in U.K. Hence the said sale deeds executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are not binding on the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule properties as the said properties are ancestral joint Hindu undivided family properties. On 15.11.2019 the plaintiffs requested the defendant No.1 to allot their 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties, but the defendant No.1 gave evasive reply, as such the plaintiffs suspected the ill intention of the defendant No.1 of usurping the share of the plaintiffs and the plaintiff No.1 and guardian of plaintiff No.2 applied before mee-seva to know the status of the suit schedule properties and the record disclosed the fraud and mischief played by the defendant No.1 to
Page No. 3 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026 deprive the legal share of the plaintiffs in collusion with the defendant Nos.2 and 3. Hence the suit for partition.
3.The defendant No.1 failed to file written statement, hence on 06.04.2021 right to file written statement by the defendant No.1 was forfeited, however during the pendency of suit defendant No.1 died.
4.A written statement is filed by the defendant No.2 admitting the relationship between the parties and denied the allegations made against the defendants No.2 in the plaint and stated that the plaintiffs in collusion with the defendant No.1 filed the present suit and the same is barred by limitation. The N.Srinivas Goud/defendant
No.1 sold his share of land of one acre in Sy.No.367/2 and 368/5 to the defendant No.2. Thus the defendant No.1 sold the Item No.1 of the suit schedule property i.e., Agricultural land Sy.No.367/2 admeasuring 0.20 guntas, and land Sy.No. 368/5 admeasuring 0.20 guntas compact in one block situated at Kurnapally village Shivar in favour of the defendant No.2 through a registered sale deed bearing document No.4708/15 dated 27-07-2015 and delivered its possession to the defendant No.2. Since July, 2015 the defendant
No.2 is in possession, enjoyment and cultivating the Item No.1 of the suit schedule property as absolute owner and further the name of defendant No.2 is also recorded in the revenue records as pattedar and possessor in respect of the aforesaid land.
Page No. 4 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026
5.It is further stated in the written statement by the defendant No.2 that the defendant No.1 also sold out the Sl.No.2 of the suit schedule property to the defendant No.3. through registered sale deed bearing document No.36/2017 dated 04-01-2017. Thus the defendant No.1 sold out the entire suit schedule properties for his family necessities and for his children's education. The defendant
No.1 established one Educational institution under the name and style as "Maharshi School" and invested some amount in the said institution and later on the defendant No.1 shut down the said institution by using its capital amount for his necessities. The defendant No.1 himself sold the suit schedule properties in favour of the defendant No.2 in the month of July, 2015 and used the sale consideration amount to the welfare of the plaintiffs and after gap of 4 years the defendant No.1 colluded with the plaintiffs and their mother and got filed the present suit for grabbing the sold out property illegally from the defendant No.2. Even after passing 4 years the plaintiffs have not taken any action during the period, hence suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation and the plaintiffs cannot get any reliefs from the defendant No.2 under the present partition suit. The plaintiffs approached this court with unclean hands and filed a false partition suit with an intention to knock away the suit schedule property of the defendant No.2 illegally.
Page No. 5 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026
6.It is further stated in the written statement by the defendant No.2 that originally suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of the N.Pedda Ganga Goud, who has got two sons i.e., Gangadhar
Goud and Defendant No.1 Srinivas Goud. During the life time of said
N.Pedda Ganga Goud, he gifted his properties under a registered gift deed document No.7040/11 dated 14-12-2011. Thus as suit schedule property is self acquired properties of N.Pedda Ganga
Goud, plaintiffs have no right or claim over the suit schedule property and as the suit schedule property are not ancestral properties, the question of partition does not arise. Hence prayed the court to dismiss the suit.
7.The defendant No.3 filed written statement denying the allegations made against the defendant No.3 in the plaint and further stated that the defendant No.1 offered to sale his land in Sy.No.369/EE to an extent of Ac.1.00gts situated at Kurnapally shivar of Kurnapally
Village. The defendant No.1 shown his Pattapass book bearing
No.95440 and title deed No.95440 patta.No.1460 and stated that the defendant No.1 acquired the land from his father through registered gift settlement deed bearing Document No.7040/2011 Dt:
14/12/2011 and on verification of title deed and patta passbook shown to defendant No.3 it was clear that the land is not Inam Land or not Prohibited for Registration and it is free from POT Act No.9/77 and it is not assigned land. Therefore, the defendant No.3 has taken
Page No. 6 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026 legal opinion for purchase of the same and at that time the plaintiffs are minors, as such the father is the Natural Guardian of plaintiffs for the welfare of the family and the defendant No.1 sold the said land.
As such the defendant No.3 paid valid sale consideration to the defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed bearing Document No.36/2017 Dt: 04-01-2017 in favor of the defendant No.3.
8.It is further stated in the written statement by the defendant No.3 that the defendant No.1 established a Private School at Yedapally by sale proceeds of the sold out land and till the death of defendant
No.1 the plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 are in joint family. After sale of the land to defendant No.3 the Defendant No.1 is having
Ac.1.00gts adjacent to the sold out land and a borewell was existing in the land of defendant No.3. The Defendant No.1 used to come and interfere with peaceful possession of the defendant No.3 over the suit schedule property for which the defendant No.3 filed a injunction suit against Defendant No.1 and his brother vide
OS.No.123/2019. Therefore the Defendant No.1 at ill advice of some
anemical persons to the defendant No.3 got filed the present suit claiming that the plaintiffs are having share in the suit schedule property. This suit is filed in collusion with the Defendant No.1 and the Defendant No.1 till his death he did not filed his written statement also and moreover the plaintiff No.2 who was minor at the
Page No. 7 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026 time of filing suit now he attained majority but no steps were taken by the plaintiffs to declare the plaintiff No.2 as major and no such petition is filed before this court and the mother who acted as guardian at the time of filing suit now she has no right to represent the plaintiff No.2 as guardian and on this ground also the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The plaintiffs and
Defendant No.1 are in collusion as such it as an collusive suit and same is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Inspite of the death of Defendant No.1, the same was not brought to the notice of this court and the legal heirs and successors were not brought on record by the plaintiffs as the mother of the plaintiffs and wife of the
Defendant No.1 is necessary party to the suit, as such necessary party is not made as a party to the suit and on this ground alone the suit is liable to be dismissed. Hence prayed the court to dismiss the suit.
9.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial;
1) Whether the plaintiff is prove that the suit schedule property is joint family property ?
2) Whether gift deed Doc.No.7040/2011 and registered sale deed document No.4708/2015 are not binding on plaintiff's ?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds ?
4) Whether plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to 1/3rd share from the suit schedule property? Or
Page No. 8 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026
5) Any other relief?
Further on 07.11.2025 the following additional issues are framed as per the orders in IA.No.433/2025;-
1) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
2) Whether the suit schedule properties are joint Hindu undivided ancestral properties of parties to the suit?
10.At the time of filing of suit the plaintiff No.2 was minor, therefore the mother of plaintiffs namely Smt.N.Srivani as guardian and next friend represented the plaintiff No.2 and subsequently during the pendency of suit plaintiff No.2 became major, hence as per the order in IA.Nos.649/2024 and 650/2024, dated 03.01.2025 the plaintiff
No.2 was declared as major in view of completion of minority and permitted to represent his present case on his own.
11.During the course of trial, the plaintiff No.2 got examined as Pw1 and the villager of the plaintiffs by name Gangadhar Goud is examined as Pw2 and during cross examination Pw2 admitted that the defendant No.1 is his younger brother and defendant No.1 is his real brother. The defendant No.2 is examined as Dw1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B4. The attesting witnesses to the sale deed i.e.,
Ex.B1 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant
No.2 in respect of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property namely
M.Kashiram and G.ChinnaLaxmaiah are examined as Dws.2 and 3.
The defendant No.3 is examined as Dw4.
Page No. 9 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026
12.Heard the arguments of both sides.
13.The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are the sons of defendant No.1 and grandsons of Late Nimmala Pedda Ganga
Goud. The suit schedule properties are the joint Hindu undivided family properties of plaintiff and defendant No.1 and the plaintiffs are co-owners. N.Pedda ganga Goud executed gift deed vide document No.7040/2011, dated 1412.2011 in favour of his son i.e., defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule properties. During the minority of the plaintiffs and when the mother of plaintiffs namely
Srivani was in U.K. the defendant No.1 sold the suit schedule properties in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 vide document
No.36/2017 and document No.4708/2015 to dupe the share of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule properties, hence the said sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule properties. On 15.11.2019 the plaintiffs requested the defendant No.1 to partition and allot their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties, but the defendant No.1 gave evasive reply. When the plaintiffs applied for documents before mee-seva to know the status of the suit schedule properties they came to know about the fraud played by the defendant No.1 to deprive the legal share of the plaintiffs in collusion with the defendant Nos.2 and 3. Hence the suit for partition and separate possession and for allotment of 1/3rd share each to
Page No. 10 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026 the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the defendant No.1 in respect of item
Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties.
14.It is the case of defendant No.2 that the plaintiffs in collusion with the defendant No.1 who is none other than the father of plaintiffs filed the present suit which is barred by limitation. The defendant
No.1 sold his share of Ac.0-20 gts each of land in Sy.Nos.367/2 and 368/5 i.e., Item No.1 of the suit schedule property to the defendant
No.2 under sale deed vide document No.4708/2015, dated 07.07.2015 and delivered its possession and since then the defendant No.2 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment and cultivating the same and even the name of defendant No.2 is recorded in the revenue records as pattedar and possessor in respect of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property. Further the defendant No.1 sold Item No.2 of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.3 under registered sale deed vide document No.36/2017, dated 04.01.2017. The defendant No.1 sold the entire suit schedule property for his family necessities and for his children education. The defendant No.1 established one educational institution under the name and style as “Maharshi school” and invested amount and when defendant No.1 sustained loss the defendant No.1 shut down the said institution. The defendant No.1 himself sold the suit schedule properties in favour of the defendant No.2 in the month of July, 2015 and after a gap of four
Page No. 11 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026 years the defendant No.1 in collusion with the plaintiffs and their mother got filed the present suit for grabbing the suit schedule property illegally from the defendant no.2. Even after passing four years the plaintiffs have not taken any action and hence the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation and the plaintiffs approached the court with unclean hands and filed a false suit to knock away the suit schedule property of defendant No.2 illegally. The suit schedule properties are originally self acquired properties of N.Pedda Ganga
Goud who has got two sons i.e., Gangadhar Goud and the defendant
No.1/Srinivas Goud. Durign the lifetime of N.Pedda Ganga Goud, he gifted his properties under a gift deed vide document No.7040/2011,
dated 14.12.2011. As the suit schedule properties are self acquired
properties of N.Pedda Ganga Goud, the plaintiffs have no right or claim over the suit schedule property and as the suit schedule properties are not ancestral properties, the question of partition does not arise. Hence praying the court to dismiss the suit.
15.It is the case of defendant No.3 that the defendant No.1 offered to sell the Item No.2 of the suit schedule property i.e., land in
Sy.No.369/EE to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts situated at Kurnapally village to defendant No.3. The defendant No.1 shown his patta passbook and title deed and stated that the defendant No.1 acquired the land from his father under a gift settlement deed vide document No.7040/2011, dated 14.12.2011 and after taking legal
Page No. 12 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026 opinion the defendant No.3 purchased the Item No.2 of the suit schedule property from the defendant No.1 for valid consideration under sale deed document No.36/2017, dated 04.01.2017. Till the death of defendant No.1, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are in joint family and after sale of the land to the defendant No.3, the defendant No.1 has got Ac.1-00 gts of land adjacent to the sold out land and a bore well was existing in the land of defendant No.3. The defendant No.1 used to come and interfere with the peaceful possession of the defendant No.3 over the suit schedule property, for which the defendant No.3 filed an injunction suit vide
OS.No.123/2019 against the defendant No.1, as such the defendant
No.1 at the ill advise of some enimical persons of defendant No.3 got filed the present suit through the plaintiffs falsely. The mother of the plaintiffs and wife of defendant No.1 namely Srivani is not made as a party to the suit and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary party.
16.As Issue No.1 and additional issue No. 2are inter connected and infact are one and the same to avoid repetition they are answered together.
17.Issue No.1 & Additional Issue No.2:- “Whether the plaintiffs proved that the suit schedule property is joint family property?” “Whether the suit schedule properties are joint Hindu undivided ancestral properties of parties to the suit?”
Page No. 13 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026
The undisputed facts of the case are that one N.Pedda Ganga Goud was the absolute owner of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties and during his life time he executed registered gift deed in respect of suit schedule properties under Ex.A1 vide document
No.7040/2011, dated 14.12.2011 in favour of his son i.e., the defendant No.1 herein. Thus the defendant No.1 herein through
Ex.A1 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule Item Nos.1 and 2 properties. N.Srivani is the wife of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the children of defendant No.1 and
N.Srivani. Basing on Ex.A1, the defendant No.1 sold away the Item
No.1 of the suit schedule properties to the defendant No.2 under a sale deed vide document No.4708/2015, dated 07.07.2015 i.e.,
Ex.B1 and Dws.2 and 3 are the attesting witnesses to Ex.B1. The defendant No.1 also sold Item No.2 of the suit schedule property to the defendant no.3 under a sale deed vide document No.36/2017,
dated 04.1.2017 i.e., Ex.A2. Thus basing on Ex.A1 the defendant
No.1 sold Item No.1 of suit schedule properties to the defendant
No.2 under Ex.B1 and item No.2 of the suit schedule property to the defendant No.3 under Ex.A2.
18.The plaintiffs herein being the sons of defendant No.1 filed the present suit alleging that as the suit schedule properties are owned by grandfather of the plaintiffs i.e., father of defendant No.1 namely
N.Pedda ganga Goud, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral
Page No. 14 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026 properties of plaintiffs and the defendant No.1. As the plaintiffs were minors, the grandfather of the plaintiffs executed a gift deed in favour of the defendant No.1 under Ex.A1, therefore basing on Ex.A1 during the minority of plaintiffs without the consent and knowledge of plaintiffs and the mother of plaintiffs. The defendant No.1 alone has no exclusive right to execute Ex.B1 and Ex.A2 sale deeds in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 respectively in respect of the
Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties. When the mother of the plaintiffs has been to U.K., without the knowledge of the plaintiffs and their mother basing on Ex.A1 the defendant No.1 executed Ex.B1 and Ex.A2 in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3, therefore Ex.B1 and Ex.A2 are not binding on the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of suit schedule Item Nos.1 and 2 properties into three parts and allotment of one share each to the plaintiff No.1, plaintiff No.2 and the defendant No.1.
19.The plaintiff No.2 is examined as Pw1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10.
Ex.A1 is the certified copy of gift deed vide document No.7040/2011,
dated 14.12.2011 through which the father of defendant No.1
executed gift settlement deed in favour of the defendant No.1 in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of registered sale deed vide document
No.36/2017, dated 04.01.2017 through which the defendant No.1 sold Item No.2 of the suit schedule property to the defendant No.3.
Page No. 15 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026
Ex.B1 is the certified copy of sale deed vide document
No.4708/2015, dated 07.07.2015 through which the defendant No.1 sold Item No.1 of the suit schedule property to the defendant No.2 herein the Dws.2 and 3 are the attesting witnesses to Ex.B1. Thus perusal of Ex.A1, Ex.B1 and Ex.A2 it is clear that basing on Ex.A1 the defendant No.1 obtained title, possession and ownership over the suit schedule properties from his father. Hence the defendant No.1 sold item No.1 under Ex.B1 to the defendant No.2 and Item no.2 under Ex.A2 to the defendant No.3.
20.Ex.A3 is the certified copy of sale deed vide document No.99/2012,
dated 05.01.2012 through which the defendant No.2 sold the
property in Sy.Nos.367/A and 368/A to one Dayala Eshwari and the property reflected under Ex.A3 is not the suit schedule property herein and Ex.A3 is no way relevant to the present suit. Ex.A4 is the death certificate of defendant No.1 which reveals that the defendant
No.1 died during the pendency of the suit on 28.03.2021. Ex.A5 is the encumbrance certificate, dated 19.12.2019 issued by the Sub
Registrar, Bodhan and it is pertaining to the land in Sy.Nos.382, 383, 1320, 367/2 and 368/5 of Kurnapally village wherein Ex.B1 is reflected. Ex.A6 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2019 pertaining to Item No.2 of the suit schedule property. Exs.A7 and A8 are the pahanies pertaining to the Item No.1 of the suit schedule property which reflects that the defendant No.2 is the pattedar and
Page No. 16 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026 possessor of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property. Ex.A9 is the pahani pertaining to Item No.2 of the suit schedule property which reflected that the defendant No.3 is the pattedar and possessor of
Item No.2 of the suit schedule property. Ex.A10 is the market value certificate pertaining to land in Sy.No.369/D which is not the suit schedule property in the present suit, therefore Ex.A10 is no way connected with the present suit.
21.Through the defendant No.2/Dw1 Exs.B1 to B4 are marked. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of sale deed vide document No.4708/2015, dated 07.07.2015 through which Item No.1 of the suit schedule property was sold by the defendant No.1 to the defendant No.2. Ex.B2 is the encumbrance certificate, dated 12.12.2025 pertaining to the Item
No.2 of the suit schedule property wherein Ex.A1 and Ex.B1 are reflected which makes it clear that the defendant No.1 obtained gift under Ex.A1 from his father and thereafter under Ex.B1 sold away
Item No.1 of the suit schedule property to the defendant No.2. Ex.B3 is the attested copy of consolidated pahani for the years 1985-86, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2003-04, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 which reflects that the father of defendant No.1 was the pattedar and possessor of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property and thereafter the defendant No.1 became the pattedar and possessor and subsequently the defendant No.2
Page No. 17 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026 became pattedar and possessor of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property. Ex.B4 is the pahani pertaining to Item No.1 of the suit schedule property which reveals that the defendant No.2 herein as the pattedar and possessor of the Item No.1 of suit schedule property existing in Sy.No.367/2 and 368/5 admeasuring Ac.0-20 gts each situated at Kurnapally village shivar, Yedapally Mandal,
Nizamabad District.
22.The dispute to be decided is whether the plaintiffs being the sons of defendant No.1 are entitled to seek for partition of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties during the lifetime of defendant No.1 on the ground that the said properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and further on the ground that the suit schedule properties are owned by the father of defendant No.1 and the father of defendant No.1 only executed gift deed under
Ex.A1 in favour of the defendant No.1, therefore the defendant No.1 alone is not the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and the plaintiffs being the sons of defendant No.1 whether are entitled to seek for partition and allotment of 1/3rd share to the plaintiff
Nos.1 and 2 and the defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule properties and that whether the defendant No.1 is not entitled to sell the suit schedule properties under Ex.B1 and A2 to the defendant
Nos.2 and 3 during the minority of plaintiffs without their knowledge and consent.
Page No. 18 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026
23.The plaintiff No.2/Pw1 during the course of cross examination admitted that in the year 1989his grandfather purchased the lands in Sy.Nos.367/2, 368/5 and 369/EE from one Gangareddy and
Ramreddy and till the year 2011 the grandfather of Pw1 cultivated the above said purchased lands by him and thereafter he gifted the said lands to his father and his father’s elder brother through registered gift deeds. Under Ex.A1 gift deed the present suit schedule properties are gifted by father of defendant No.1 to the defendant No.1. Pw1 admitted that one acre of land in Sy.No.369 was sold by his father to his elder brother. The said admission of Pw1 reveals that the said one acre of land in Sy.No.369 which was sold by the defendant No.1 to his brother is not shown as one of the suit schedule property in the present suit and no reason is stated for not including said Ac.1-00 gts of land in present suit as one of the suit schedule property and only the properties which the defendant No.1 sold to the defendant Nos.2 and 3 under Ex.B1 and A2 are only shown as the suit schedule properties which reveals the conduct of the plaintiffs that intentionally the land in Sy.No.369 admeasuring
Ac.1-00 gts which was sold by the defendant No.1 to his elder brother is not arrayed as the suit schedule property in the present suit. If the plaintiffs are seeking the partition fairly they ought to have been shown all the properties which the defendant No.1 has sold but only the property which the defendant No.1 sold in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are shown as the suit schedule properties
Page No. 19 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026 excluding Ac.1-00 gts of land in Sy.No.369 which the defendant No.1 sold to his elder brother.
24.Pw1 admitted during the course of cross examination that in the year 2015 for the welfare of the family, the father of Pw1 sold Ac.0- 20 gts of land in Sy.No.367/2 and Ac.0-20 gts of land in Sy.No.368/5 to the defendant No.2 and established a school by name Maharshi at
Yedapally by investing huge amount and ran the school for five years and thereafter the father of Pw1 sustained huge loss, hence closed the school. Pw1 also admitted that during the lifetime of his father, his brother i.e., plaintiff No.1 completed his MBA course and
Pw1 completed B.Com and his father invested amount for education of both the plaintiffs.
25.Though the learned counsel for the defendants argued that the defendant No.1 has not sold the suit schedule properties for establishment of school and education of the plaintiffs and other family necessities, Pw1 categorically admitted that by selling the
Item No.1 of the suit schedule property to the defendant No.2 under
Ex.B1 his father established school, ran it for five years and sustained loss and closed it and thereafter educated the plaintiffs.
Though the plaintiffs stated in the plaint that when the mother of the plaintiffs has been to U.k. and when the plaintiffs were minors without their knoweldge the defendant No.1 executed Ex.B1 and
Page No. 20 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026
Ex.A2 sale deeds in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in respect of the suit schedule properties. Pw1 during cross examination admitted that plaintiffs have not filed any documentary evidence to show that the mother of plaintiffs has been to U.K. during which time the father of plaintiffs executed sale deeds in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in respect of the suit schedule properties. If at all the mother of the plaintiffs has been to U.K. and during her absence if Exs.B1 and A2 are executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3, the plaintiffs would have filed documentary evidence pertaining to the same which reveals the conduct of the plaintiffs as no such evidence is placed moreover
Ex.B1 and A2 are executed on 07.07.2015 and 04.01.2017 respectively i.e., with a gap of one and half years both documents were executed. If the mother of the plaintiffs has been to U.K. for such a long time, the plaintiffs would have definitely filed documentary evidence pertaining to the same. Pw1 denied the suggestion that the plaintiffs along with their parents hatched a plan to grab the suit schedule properties from the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the present suit in respect of the properties sold under Exs.B1 and
A2 which were sold by the defendant No.1 which was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and their mother. Pw1 admitted that till the year 2019 no steps were taken by the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule properties.
Page No. 21 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026
26.During the course of cross examination by the learned counsel for the defendant No.3, the Pw1 categorically deposed that at the time of filing of the suit, their family was in joint consisting of plaintiff
No.1, plaintiff No.2 and their parents which clearly reveals the conduct of the plaintiffs that though the plaintiffs and the defendant
No.1 and mother of plaintiffs were jointly residing, intentionally the present suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 and 3 in respect of the suit schedule properties without arraying Ac.1-00 gts of land sold by the defendant No.1 to his elder brother in Sy.No.369. Pw1 admitted that his mother is not arrayed as defendant in the present suit and Pw1 categorically admitted that by receiving total sale consideration the defendant
No.1 executed sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 in respect of suit schedule properties and as on the date of sale of the suit schedule property by father of Pw1 to the defendant Nos.2 and 3, Pw1 and his brother were minors and the father of the plaintiffs sustained huge loss in a school established by him. Thus the admission of Pw1 clearly reveals that the plaintiffs were minor and their father i.e., the defendant No.1 sold Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property to the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and established a school, ran for five years and when sustained huge loss closed it. It is also clear to the court from the admission of Pw1 that the defendant No.1 after receiving entire sale consideration executed
Ex.B1 and Ex.A2 in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3.
Page No. 22 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026
27.The own brother of the defendant No.1 by name Gangadhar Goud filed his chief affidavit as Pw2 reiterating the contents of the plaint and during the course of cross examination Pw2 deposed that the defendant No.1 is his own younger brother and his real brother and
Pw2 admitted that out of two acres owned by his father, his father gifted one acre to Pw2 and one acre to his brother i.e., the defendant No.1 herein. Pw2 admitted that Pw2 sold away his one acre of land to defendant No.1 to perform marriage of his daughter and the defendant No.1 sold away one acre of land to the defendant
No.2 herein. Though Pw2 once deposed that he does not know that with the sale proceeds of the land sold by the defendant No.1 to the defendant No.2, the defendant No.1 established a school, but volunteered that the defendant No.1 established his school before selling his one acre of land to the defendant No.2 and further during the course of cross examination Pw2 categorically admitted that the defendant No.1 sold away one acre of land to the defendant No.2 as he sustained loss in the school established by him and also for education of his children and the school established by the defendant No.1 was closed as the defendant No.1 misbehaved with girl students and a report was given to the concerned police regarding the same and thereafter the matter was pacified by all of them and the school was closed and when the defendant No.1 was running the school his family used to reside at Yedapally and Pw2 is not aware of family issues of the plaintiffs.
Page No. 23 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026
28.Pw2 deposed that Pw2 does not know whether the family members of defendant No.1 are aware of selling away one acre of land by the defendant No.1 to the defendant No.2, as Pw2 was in Hyderabad then. Pw2 further admitted that Pw2 and the defendant No.1 are sons of Pedda ganga Goud and the defendant No.1 sold away one acre of land to the defendant No.2 herein. Pw2 denied the suggestion that the defendant No.1 sold one are of land to the defendant No.3 herein. Thus from the evidence of Pw2 it is clear that
Pw2 is real brother of defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 sold away one acre of land to the defendant No.2 and Pw2 is aware of it and that the defendant No.1 established school and sustained loss an closed it. Though Pw2 denied the suggestion that the defendant
No.1 sold one acre of land to the defendant No.3, Ex.A2 clearly reveals that the defendant No.1 sold one acre of land i.e., item No.2 of the suit schedule property to the defendant No.3 herein and further it is settled law that documentary evidence prevails over oral evidence.
29.The defendant No.2 filed chief affidavit reiterating the contents of written statement and nothing in favour of the plaintiffs could be elicited during the course of cross examination of Dw1. Dws.2 and 3 filed their chief affidavit stating that they are attesting witnesses 1 and 2 to Ex.B1 i.e., sale deed vide document No.4708/2015, dated 07.07.2015 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the
Page No. 24 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026 defendant No.2 in respect of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property.
During the course of cross examination Dws.1 to 3 admitted that the signatures of wife and children of defendant No.1 are not seen in
Ex.B1. Dws.2 and 3 denied the suggestion that Dws.2 and 3 and the defendant No.2 threatened the defendant No.1 and got executed
Ex.B1 sale deed in favour of the defendant No.2. Thus nothing in favour of the plaintiffs could be elicited from the cross examination of Dws.1 to 3. Further as the defendant No.1 became exclusive owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.A1, the signatures and consent of the wife and children of the defendant
No.1 to execute Exs.B1 and A2 in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 is not legally essential.
30.The defendant No.3 filed his chief affidavit as Dw4 reiterating the contents of his written statement. Astonishingly Dw4 was suggested by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that by mortgaging the gold of Dw4 in muthoot finance the defendant No.1 obtained loan and they could not redeem the said gold, therefore the said gold is with muthoot finance only. Dw4 denied the suggestion that by harassing the defendant No.1 for mortgaging gold of Dw4 and not returning the same to him, Dw4 got transferred one acre of land of defendant
No.1 in Sy.No.369/EE on his name. The said plea was not taken by the plaintiffs in their plaint or chief affidavits, hence the said contention of plaintiffs is nothing but an improvement made in the
Page No. 25 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026 case of the plaintiffs during the cross examination of Dw4 and further no documentary evidence is placed in respect of the same that the gold of defendant No.3 was mortgaged by defendant No.1 in muthoot finance and failed to redeem it. Thus during the course of cross examination of Dws.1 to 4 nothing in favour of the plaintiffs could be elicited.
31.Now the fact to be decided by the court is whether the defendant
No.1 succeeded the suit schedule properties from his father through
Ex.A1 is entitled to execute registered sale deeds under Exs.B1 and
A2 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs when the plaintiffs were minor. Admittedly as admitted by Pw1 during the course of cross examination in the year 1989 the father of defendant No.1 purchased the suit schedule properties and under Ex.A1 registered gift deed vide document
No.7040/2011, dated 14.12.2011 gifted the suit schedule properties to the defendant No.1. Therefore, as per the settled law the defendant No.1 became absolute owner of the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties by virtue of Ex.A1, therefore during the life time of defendant No.1 the defendant No.1 has exclusive power to alienate, gift or do whatever with the properties which were succeeded from his father under Ex.A1 gift deed document
No.7040/2011, dated 14.12.2011 and further the father of defendant
No.1 who purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1989 has
Page No. 26 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026 got right to execute Ex.A1 gift deed in favour of his son i.e., defendant No.1 herein as the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of father of defendant No.1. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no right to question the execution of Ex.A1 by the father of defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant no.1 and execution of Exs.B1 and A2 by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3.
32.The plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 herein though are the sons of defendant
No.1 during the lifetime of defendant No.1, the plaintiffs have no right to seek for partition of the suit schedule properties from their father i.e., the defendant No.1 who in turn succeeded the same under gift deed under Ex.A1 from his father, as the nature of the property soon after execution of Ex.A1 in favour of defendant No.1 by his father attains the nature of self acquired property of defendant No.1, therefore though the defendant No.1 succeeded the suit schedule properties from his father through Ex.A1 gift deed, the sons of defendant No.1 who are the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 herein have no legal right to seek for partition of the suit schedule properties during the life time of defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 has every right to alienate the properties which he obtained right under
Ex.A1 during his lifetime to defendant Nos.2 and 3 under Ex.B1 and
Ex.A2 respectively and if the father of defendant No.1 executed
Ex.A1 in favour of the defendant No.1 the nature of property which is
Page No. 27 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026 fallen in the hands of defendant No.1 through Ex.A1 is to be considered as self acquired property of defendant No.1. Therefore, the suit schedule property cannot be claimed as joint family property by the plaintiffs during the life time of defendant No.1 which the defendant No.1 already sold to the defendant Nos.2 and 3.
Hence the defendant No.1 has every right to sell the same to the defendant Nos.2 and 3 during the life time of defendant No.1 under
Ex.B1 and A2. Thus the plaintiffs herein failed to establish that the suit schedule properties are joint undivided ancestral family properties of plaintiffs and the defendant No.1. Accordingly, the
Issue No.1 and additional issue No.2 are answered against the plaintiffs.
33.Issue No.2:- Whether gift deed Doc.No.7040/2011 and registered sale deed document No.4708/2015 are not binding on plaintiff's ?
It is the case of the plaintiffs that The suit schedule properties are the joint Hindu undivided family properties and the plaintiffs are the co-owners. The deceased grandfather of the plaintiffs executed a registered gift deed in favour of defendant No.1 vide
Doc.No.7040/2011, dated 14.12.2011 as the plaintiffs were minor but the defendant No.1 knowingly and wantedly in the absence of mother of plaintiff namely Nimmapally Sravani who is the wife of defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 alienated the suit schedule
Page No. 28 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026 properties in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 vide
Doc.No.4708/2015, dated 07.07.2015 and Doc.No.36/2017, dated 04.01.2017 under registered sale deeds to knock away the legal share of the plaintiffs in the ancestral joint Hindu undivided family properties. At the time of execution of Exs.A2 and B1, the plaintiffs were minor and their next friend and guardian was at abroad in U.K.
Hence the Ex.A1 executed by the grandfather of plaintiffs in favour of the father of plaintiffs i.e., defendant No.1 and the said sale deeds executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 i.e., Exs.B1 and A2 are not binding on the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule properties as the said properties are ancestral joint Hindu undivided family properties.
34.On the other hand it is the case of defendant Nos.2 and 3 that defendant No.1 sold his share of Ac.0-20 gts each of land in
Sy.Nos.367/2 and 368/5 i.e., Item No.1 of the suit schedule property to defendant No.2 under Ex.B1 sale deed document No.4708/2015,
Dt.07.07.2015 and delivered its possession and since then the defendant No.2 is in peaceful possession, enjoyment and cultivating the same and even the name of defendant No.2 is recorded in the revenue records as pattedar and possessor in respect of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property. Further the defendant No.1 sold Item
No.2 of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.3
Page No. 29 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026 under registered sale deed vide document No.36/2017, dated 04.01.2017. The defendant No.1 sold the entire suit schedule property for his family necessities and for his children education.
The defendant No.1 shown his Patta pass book No.95440 and title deed No.95440 vide patta No.1460 and stated that the defendant
No.1 acquired the land from his father through Ex.A1 the registered gift settlement deed bearing Document No.7040/2011 Dt:
14/12/2011 and on verification of title deed and patta passbook shown to defendant No.3 it was clear that the land is not Inam Land or not Prohibited for Registration and it is free from POT Act No.9/77 and it is not assigned land. Therefore, the defendant No.3 has taken legal opinion for purchase of the same and at that time the plaintiffs are minors, as such the father is the Natural Guardian of plaintiffs for the welfare of the family and the defendant No.1 sold the said land owned by him through Ex.A1. As such the defendant No.3 paid valid sale consideration to the defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed under Ex.A2 bearing Document
No.36/2017 Dt: 04-01-2017 in favour of defendant No.3.
35.As discussed supra under the Issue No.1 and additional issue No.2 this court concluded that the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of the father of defendant No.1, hence the same were gifted under Ex.A1 by the father of defendant No.1 to the defendant No.1 and thus the defendant No.1 during his life time
Page No. 30 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026 succeeded the suit schedule properties from his father through
Ex.A1 gift deed document No.7040/2011 and the nature of the properties became self acquired properties of defendant No.1 and as such the defendant No.1 during his lifetime has got every right to alienate, gift, mortgage, etc. in respect of the suit schedule properties. Thus the defendant No.1 being the rightful owner and having valid title alienated the suit schedule Item Nos.1 and 2 properties in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 under the registered instruments and the said alienations are valid in the eye of law and the plaintiffs have no right to question the same. Thus the Exs.A1, A2 and B1 are valid and binding on the plaintiffs. Issue answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiffs.
36.To avoid repetition and as inter connected the issue Nos.3 and 4 are answered together.
37.Issue Nos.3 and 4:-
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds ?
4) Whether plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to 1/3rd share from the suit schedule property? Or
The learned counsel for the plaintiffs would contend that the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 constitute joint Hindu undivided family as the grandfather of the plaintiffs purchased the suit schedule properties and the defendant No.1 succeeded the suit
Page No. 31 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026 schedule properties from his father i.e., Nimmapally Pedda Ganga
Goud under Ex.A1 gift deed in which property the plaintiffs are also entitled for 1/3rd share as the suit schedule properties are their ancestral joint family properties, but the defendant No.1 when the mother of the plaintiffs has been to U.K. and even when the plaintiffs are minors without their knowledge sold out the Item Nos.1 and 2 suit schedule properties in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 under
Exs.B1 and A2 which is illegal, non est and invalid in the eye of law.
38.It is admitted fact that the defendant No.1 died during the pendency of the suit and the plaintiffs have not taken any steps to bring the wife of defendant No.1 on to the record as one of the defendant. The plaintiff No.1 was major at the time of institution of the suit but the plaintiff No.2 was minor, hence the plaintiff No.2 was represented by his guardian, next friend and natural mother namely Smt.Srinvani who filed the suit against the defendant No.1 to 3 seeking the relief of partition and allotment of 1/3rd share in Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties. Pw1 during the course of cross examination deposed that the defendant No.1 sold his one acre of land in favour of his elder brother and the same is not arrayed as one of the suit schedule property in the present case only properties sold to the defendant Nos.2 and 3 by the defendant No.1 as shown in the suit schedule property. Further, the mother of the plaintiffs is also not added as a party to the suit after demise of father of the plaintiffs.
Page No. 32 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026
39.However, the first and foremost question before this court whether the suit schedule property is the joint family property of plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 and the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties is the prime point for consideration in this case. As per the settled law, as the suit schedule properties in the present case are the self acquired property of father of the defendant No.1 and though the plaintiffs are the sons of defendant No.1, they cannot claim share in the properties of their father/defendant No.1, since the defendant
No.1 acquired the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties from his father i.e., Nimmapally Pedda Ganga Goud under Ex.A1 gift deed and therefore the nature of the properties becomes self acquired properties of defendant No.1 in which the plaintiffs are not supposed to seek partition and separate possession and during the lifetime of defendant No.1 the defendant No.1 has exclusive right over the same.
40.The Hon’ble Supreme Court about 40 years back rendered the judgment, in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and other Vs.Chander Sen and others reported in (1986) 3
S.C.C. 567 wherein it is held that:
“After passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the traditional view that on inheritance of an immovable
Page No. 33 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026 property from paternal ancestors upto three degrees, automatically an Hindu Undivided Family came into existence, no longer remained the legal position in view of Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956”.
This judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chander Sen (supra) was thereafter followed by the Supreme Court in the case of
Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 204 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal position that after coming into force of Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, inheritance of ancestral property after 1956 does not create an HUF property and inheritance of ancestral property after 1956 therefore does not result in creation of an HUF property. Thus in view of the ratios of the judgments in the cases of Chander Sen (supra) and
Yudhishter (supra), in law ancestral property can only become and
HUF property, if inheritance is before 1956, and such HUF property therefore which came into existence before 1956 continues as such even after 1956. In such a case, since an HUF already existed prior to 1956, thereafter, since the same as HUF with its properties continues, the status of joint Hindu Family/HUF properties continues, and only in such a case, members of such joint Hindu Family are coparceners entitling them to a share in the HUF properties.”
41.On the legal position which emerges pre-1956 i.e. before passing of
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and post 1956 i.e. after passing of the
Page No. 34 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is to be considered. If a person dies after passing of HSA, 1956 and there is no HUF existing at the time of death of such a person, inheritance of an immovable property of such a person by his successors-in-interest is no doubt inheritance of an “ancestral’ property, but the inheritance is as a self acquired property in the hands of the successors and not as an HUF property although the successor (s) indeed inherits “ancestral” property i.e. a property belonging to his paternal ancestor.”
42.The learned counsel for the defendant No.3 relied on a decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e., Between:- Angadi Chandranna Vs.
Shanker and others reported in 2025 INSC 532, wherein it was held as follows:- “It is settled law that the property inherited by a male Hindu from his father, father’s father or father’s father’s father is an ancestral property.
However, as per Hindu law, after partition, each party gets a separate and distinct share and this share becomes their self-acquired property and they have absolute rights over it and they can sell, transfer or bequeath it as they wish.
Accordingly, the properties bequeathed through partition become the self acquired properties of the respective sharers.
It is also to be mentioned here that when the income derived from the joint family property or when a joint family
Page No. 35 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026 property is sold and the sale consideration is utilized for maintenance and education within the joint family, the same are to be treated as out of necessity as it is the duty of every Kartha to do so. Hence it is sufficient to satisfy the legal necessity if the Kartha had sold the property and used the funds for upbringing the children. That apart under the customary practices and tradition in this country, it is the father who perform the marriage of his children and therefore the expenses incurred for that purposes are also to be treated as expenses out of necessity”.
43.The only way in which a Hindu undivided family/joint Hindu family can come into existence after 1956, is if an individual’s property is thrown into a common hotchpot. Also, once a property is thrown into a common hotchpot, it is necessary that the exact details of specific date/month/year etc., of creation of an HUF for the first time by throwing a property into a common hotchpot have to be clearly pleaded and mentioned. Consequently, there is entitlement in coparceners etc to a share in such HUF property.
44.An HUF can also exist if paternal ancestral properties are inherited prior to 1956, and such status of parties qua the properties has continued after 1956 with respect to properties inherited prior to 1956 from paternal ancestors. Once the status and position continues ever after 1956 of the HUF and of its properties existing; a coparcenor will have a right to seek partition of properties of parties.
Page No. 36 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026
45.In law there is difference between the ancestral properties/properties and the HUF properties/properties for the Pre-1956 and Post-1956 position because inheritance of ancestral properties prior to 1956 made such properties as HUF properties in the hands of a person, who inherits them, but if ancestral properties are inherited by a person after 1956 such inheritance in the latter case is as self- acquired properties unless of course it is shown in the latter case that HUF existed prior to 1956 and continued thereafter.
46.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case reported in AIR 2016 SC 1169 between Uttam Vs Subagh Singh re-laid the Law on the concept of the ancestral property held that:- “a conjoint reading of Secs.4, 8 and 19 of Hindu Succession
Act, 1956, after joint family property has been distributed in accordance with Sec.8 on principles of intestacy, the joint family property ceases to be joint family property in the hands of the various persons who have succeeded to it as they hold the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants”.
47.It is also settled principle of law that a grandson and granddaughter cannot claim partition in grandfather’s self acquired property during the life time of their father. In the present suit, the plaintiffs have filed the suit during the life time of their father i.e., defendant No.1 herein who acquired right over the suit schedule property through
Page No. 37 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026
Ex.A1 and sold the same to defendant Nos.2 and 3 through registered sale deeds under Exs.B1 and A2. Therefore, no cause of action arose to seek for partition and it is also never the case of plaintiffs that succession opened prior to 1956 in the present case as
Ex.A1 pertains to the year 2011 and the father of defendant No.1 purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1989 and till 2011 he cultivated the same and executed gift deed under Ex.A1 in favour of the defendant No.1 in the year 2011. Thus it is clear that succession in present case pertains to post 1956.
48.It is the case of plaintiffs that the father of the plaintiffs i.e., the defendant No.1 succeeded the suit schedule properties from his father i.e., Nimmapally Pedda Ganga Goud under Ex.A1 gift deed and subsequently when the mother of the plaintiffs has been to U.K.
and during the minority of the plaintiffs without their consent and knowledge the defendant No.1 alienated the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 under Ex.B1 and A2 without any right and the suit schedule properties are the undivided joint Hindu ancestral family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1. Out of suit schedule item
Nos.1 and 2 properties the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3rd share each. Through Ex.A1 the defendant No.1 has became title holder of suit schedule Item Nos.1 and 2 properties and the natuer of property reflected under Ex.A1 change as self acquired property of defendant
Page No. 38 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026
No.1 and by virtue of Ex.B1 and A2 sale deeds the defendant No.1 sold Item Nos.1 and 2 of suit schedule properties to the defendant
Nos.2 and 3. Thus in view of the settled legal proposition that the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 being the exclusive owner, pattedar and possessor of the same alienated the same in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 under the registered instruments for valid consideration and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are now in possession and enjoyment over the same. The case law submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant No.3 squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand. Both the issue Nos.3 and 4 are answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.
49.Additional Issue No.1:-Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
As per Ex.A4 the defendant No.1 herein who is the father of plaintiff
Nos.1 and 2 herein died on 28.03.2021 i.e., during the pendency of the suit. As per the law after demise of defendant No.1, the wife and children of defendant No.1 will be the legal heirs of defendant No.1 and are to be brought on record. As the two sons of defendant No.1 are already on record as plaintiffs, the wife of defendant No.1 who is also the mother of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 herein namely Srivani as per procedure is to be brought on record as legal heir of defendant
Page No. 39 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026
No.1 and would have been arrayed as defendant No.4, but no such steps were taken by the plaintiffs and the wife of defendant No.1 is not brought on record as required under Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C.
Infact the mother of the plaintiffs namely Srivani represented the plaintiff No.2 at the time of filing of the suit as legal guardian and next friend and subsequently after the plaintiff No.2 attained majority, the plaintiff No.2 obtained permission from the court to represent his case on his own. Thus it is clear to the court that after the demise of defendant No.1, the wife of defendant No.1 as per procedure has to be brought on record being the legal heir of defendant No.1 who was not already on record, therefore the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e., for non joinder of wife of defendant No.1. Issue answered accordingly against the plaintiffs.
50.Issue No.5 :- Any other relief?
In view of the findings given to Issue Nos.1 to 5 and additional issue
Nos.1 and 2, this court concluded that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the suit schedule Item Nos.1 and 2 properties are Joint
Hindu undivided family properties of plaintiffs and the defendant
No.1 and that the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and allotment of 1/3rd share each in it. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for. Issue answered accordingly.
Page No. 40 of 41
OS.No.254 of 2023 (Old OS.No.154 of 2019)
SCJ, Bodhan, Date 23.04.2026
51.In the result, the suit is dismissed without cost in view of close relation between the parties.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced
by me in the open Court, on this the 23rd day of April, 2026.
Senior Civil Judge,
Bodhan.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For the plaintiffsFor defendant No.2For defendant No.3
Pw1: N.Anvith GoudDw1: M.PoshettyDw4: N.Yogeshwar Goud Pw2: Gangadhar GoudDw2: M.Kashiram Dw3: G.C.Laxmaiah
Exhibits marked
For the plaintiffs: Ex.A1: CC of gift deed Doc.No.7040/2011, dated 14.12.2011 Ex.A2: CC of sale deed Doc.No.36/2017, dated 04.01.2017 Ex.A3: CC of sale deed Doc.No.99/2012, dated 05.01.2012 Ex.A4: Death certificate of defendant No.1 Ex.A5: Encumbrance certificate, dated 19.12.2019 Ex.A6: CC of pahani for the year 2019 Ex.A7: CC of pahani for the year 2019 Ex.A8: CC of pahani for the year 2019 Ex.A9: CC of pahani for the year 2019 Ex.A10: Market value assistance, dated 05.12.2019
For the defendants:- Ex.B1: CC of sale deed Doc.No.4708/15 dated 07-07-2015 Ex.B2: Encumbrance certificate, dated 12.12.2025 Ex.B3: attested copy of consolidated pahani for the years 1985-86, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2003-04, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 Ex.B4: Ccof four pahanies, dated 01.02.2020
Senior Civil Judge,
Bodhan.
Page No. 41 of 41