JUDGE , FAMILY COURT-CUM-VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :
MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present: SRI A.KARNA KUMAR,
Judge, Family Court-Cum-
VII Addl. District Judge,
Sangareddy.
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
O.S.NO. 75 of 2007
Between
1.Burremolla Dayanand ( died ) per L.Rs. (Plaintiff Nos. 6 to 13 are brought on record).
2. B. Mohan ( Died) per L.Rs. (Plaintiff Nos. 14 to 18 are brought on record).
3. B. Hanmanthu (died) per Lrs) D-19 to 23.
4.B. Gopal S/o late Lingamaiah, Aged: 38 years Occ: Agriculture,
5. B. Raju S/o Sathaiah, Aged: 39 years, Occ: Agriculture All are R/o Patelgudem village, Patancheru Mandal District Sangareddy, Now residing at H.No.1-6-35/4 Narsimha Gutta, Road No.4, Chaitanyapuri, Hyderabad.
6. B. Premavathi W/o late B. Dayanand, Aged: 55 years, Occ: House hold, R/o H.No.1-6-35/4, Narsimha Gutta, Road No.4, Chaitanyapur, Hyderabad.
7. S. Devi W/o Srinivas, Aged: 35 years, Occ: house hold R/o H.No.9-2-35/1, Langer House, Hyderabad.
8. V. Jyothi W/o Nagaraju, Aged: 34 years, Occ: House hold R/o H.No.11-14-473, Sri Nagar Colony, L.B. Nagar Rangareddy District.
9. K. Shanti (died) per Lrs) D-24 to 26.
10.K. Varalaxmi W/o Suresh, Aged:29 years Occ: Household, R/o H.No.82/A II, Laxmi Nagar West Maredipally, Secunderabad.
2 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007
11. B. Annapurna W/o Shekar, Aged:26 years Occ: House hold, R/o H.No.3-104/3, Goutam Nagar Patancheru Town, Dist. Medak.
12. C. Aruna W/o Nagaraju, Aged:23 years, Occ: House hold R/o H.No.9-1-34/4, Langer House, Hyderabad.
13. B. Manju D/o late Dayanand, Aged: 20 years Occ: House hold, R/o H.No.1-6-35/4, Narsimha gutta Road No.4, Chaitanyapur, Hyderabad.
14. B. lalitha (died)
15. B. Home Prakash, S/o late B. Mohan, Aged: 30 years, Occ: Business
16. B. Shiva Kumar S/o late B. Mohan, Aged: 27 years, Occ: Business
17. B. Vishnu S/o late B. Mohan, Aged: 24 years Occ: Business, All are R/o H.No.14-3-144, joshiwadi Arya Samaj Gosha Mahal, Hyderabad.
18.B. Vanaja, W/o B.Santosh, D/o late B. Mohan, Aged: 31 years, Occ: house hold, R/o H.No.13-6-902/1 Banjawadi, Near Post Office, Karwan, Hyderabad.
( The plaintiffs No.18 is added as per orders in I.A.No.280 of 2016 dated
15.03.20221)
19.B. Shivaleela W/o late B. Hanmanthu Aged about 45 years, Occ: House Hold
20.B.Bhavani D/olate B. Hanmanthu Aged about 25 years, Occ: Household
21.B. Madhu S/o late B. Hanmanthu Aged about 22 years, Occ: Student
22.B. Divya D/o late B.Hanmanthu Aged about 18 years, Occ: Student
23.B. Vaishnavi D/o late B. Hanmanthu Aged about 15 years, Occ: Student All are R/o H.NO.14-3-144, Joshiwadi Aryasamaj Gosha Mahal, Hyderabad.
3 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007
24.K. Veerender H/o late K. Shanthi Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business
25.K. Yeshvanth S/o K.Shanthi Aged about 21 years, Occ: Student
26.K. Rohit S/o late K.Shanthi Aged about 19 years, Occ: Student All are R/o H.No.18-7-747/A1/2, Goulipura, Hyderabad.
(plaintiffs 19 to 26 are added as per orders in I.A.No. 279 of 2021 dated 15.03.2021).
…..Plaintiffs
AND
1. Burremolla Kumar S/o late Bala Lingam Aged: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture
2. Burremolla Laxman S/o late Bala Lingam Aged: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture
3. Burremolla Prakash S/o late Bala Lingam Aged: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture
4. Burremolla Raju S/o late Bala Lingam, Aged: 32 years Occ: Agriculture
5.Burremolla Gopal S/o late Bala Lingam, Aged: 30 years Occ: Agriculture, All are R/o Patelgudam village, Patancheru Mandal Sangareddy District.
6.Talari Kalamma W/o Chandraiah, Aged: 39 years Occ: House hold, R/o Rudraram village Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District. (D.6 added as per orders in I.A.No.1436 of 2007 dated 11.06.2008).
7. B. Bharatamma W/o late Sattaiah, Aged: 80 years Occ: house hold
8. B. Sulochana W/o B. Krishna, Aged: 50 years, Occ: Household Both are R/o H.No.13-6-902/1, Karvan, Hyderabad. (D.7 and 8 are added as per orders in I.A.No.716 of 2010
dated 26.04.2010).
4 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007
9. M/s Sree Gaja Laxmi Builders, Plot No.507/A/part Vandanapuri colony, Isukabavi H/o Ameenpur, Mandal Patandheru, District Sangareddy.
10. S.L. Sivanand S/o late Laxmaiah, Aged: 50 years Occ: Business, Managing Partner of M/s Sree Gaja Laxmi Builders R/o Plot No.32, AP Text Book Colony, Kharkhana, Secunderabad.
11.Taliuri Hanumantha Rao S/o T. swami Needu Aged: 58 years, Occ: Business Partner of M/S Ree Gaja laxmi Builders, R/o H.No.1-140 Chanda Nagar, Hyderabad 500 050. (D.9 to D.11 are added as per orders in I.A. No. 792 of 2014 dated 18.08.2015).
12. V. Madhava Reddy S/o Narayan Reddy, Aged: 45 years Occ: Business, R/o H.No.11-159, I.D.A Bollaram Jinnaram Mandal, Sangareddy District. D.12 added as per order sin I.A. No.1446 of 2015 dated 11.12.2015
13.Garela Jangaiah died per Lrs.
14.Garela Krishna S/olate Jangaiah Aged about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Patelguda village, Ameenpur mandal Sangareddy District.
15.Yadamma W/o Krishna Aged about 48 years, Occ: House wife R/o Ameenpur village and Mandal, Sangareddy District.
16.Andalu W/o Darshan Aged about 46 years, Occ: House wife R/o Beeramguda, H/o Ameenpur village and Mandal Sangareddy District.
(D.13 to D.16 are added as per orders in I.A.No. 53 of 2017 dated 12.07.2017).
17.Shyamala W/o Sudarshan Aged about 40 years, Occ: housewife R/o H.No.11-1-93951, Seetharambagh Mallepally, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad. (D.17 is added as per orders in I.A.No. 644 of 2017 dated 11.09.2017) 5 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007
18.B. Narsimha @ R. Narsimha S/o B.Kumar Aged about 36 years, Occ: pvt. Employee R/o H.No.5-34, Patelguda village, Ameenpur Mandal Sangareddy District.
19. B. Bhaskar @ R. Bhaskar S/o B. Kumar Aged about 29 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee R/o H.No.5-34, Patelguda village, Ameenpur mandal Sangreddy District.
20.B. Venkatesh @ R.Venkatesh S/o B. Laxman Aged about 25 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee R/o H.NO.4-92, Patelguda village, Ameenpur mandal Sangareddy District.
21.B. Srikanth @ R. Srikanth S/o . Gopal Aged about 26, Occ: Employee, R/o H.No.4-94/1 Patelguda village, Ameenpur mandal, Sangareddy District.
22.G. Arundh @ M. Arundha W/o G. Krishna Aged about 49 years, Occ: house wife R/o H.No.5-27, Patelguda village, Ameenpur mandal Sangareddy District.
23.G. Bhaskar @ M. Bhaskar S/o Krishna Aged about 30 years, Occ: Advocate R/o H.No.5-27, Patelguda village, Ameenpur Mandal Sangareddy District.
24.Ulla Jyothi D/o G.Krishna Aged about 25 years, Occ: Housewife R/o H.No.5-27, Patelguda village Ameenpur Mandal Sangareddy District.
25.M/s R.C.Puram BHEL Employees Mutually Aided Co-operative House Building Society Rep. By its President having office at HIG BHEL, Ramchandrapuram, Sangareddy District.
(D.18 to D.25 are added as per orders in I.A.No. 714 of 2017 dated 07.12.2017) …. Defendants 6 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007
This suit came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.
Narsimuu, Sri M. Yadaiah, Sri Mohd. Adil, Advocates for the plaintiffs, Sri P. Veera
Reddy, Sri J. Ram Reddy, Advocates for defendants 1 to 5, M/s C. Rajeshwar Rao,
Advocate for defendants 7 and 8, Sri M. Govardhan, Smt. N. Srividya, Advocates for D.9 and D.11, Sri M. Venkataiah, Advocate for defendant No.14, Sri S.
Praveen, Advocate for D.17, Sri K.Krishna Rao, Advocate for D.6, while the suit against D.25 is dismissed for default and defendants 10, 12, 15, 16, 18 to 24 remained exparte and defendant No.13 died and on perusal of the material and upon hearing both sides and upon considering all the material papers on record, this Court made the following-
J U D G M E N T
1.This is a suit filed for partition and separate possession of suit schedule lands into two equal shares and to allot half share to the plaintiffs and half share to the defendants.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are that :
(i)The plaintiffs 1 to 5 and defendants 1 to 6 are the undivided joint family members and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties ( Agricultural lands in Sy.No.9 admeasuring Ac.3-21 guntas,
Sy.No.17 admeasuring Ac.2.02 guntas, Sy.No.30 admeasuring Ac.0-28 guntas,
Sy.No.44 admeasuring Ac.1-04 guntas, Sy.No.68 admeasuring Ac.1-30 guntAS,
Sy.No.72 admeasuring Ac.1-18 guntas, situated at Patelguda village, Patancheru
Mandal, Sangareddy District ( hereinafter referred as ' suit schedule property').
Originally, late Burremolla Dakaiah is the common ancestor to the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 8. He died leaving behind two sons namely Venkanna and Bala 7 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007
Lingam. The said Venkanna died leaving behind three sons namely Sathaiah, Sri
Ramulu and Bala Lingam. Out of them, Sathaiah died leaving behind one daughter by name Sulochana, defendant No.8 herein and wife by name
Bharathamma defendant No.7. Sriramulu died issue less whereas the defendants 1 to 6 are the legal heirs of Bal Lingam i.e., the defendants 1 to 5 are the sons and defendant no.6 is the daughter. The younger son of Dakaiah namely Bala
Lingam died leaving behind him one son by name Balaiah and the said Balaiah died leaving three sons namely Lingamaiah, Sathaiah and Dayanand. Out of them, Lingamaiah died leaving behind him three sons I.e,. the plaintiffs 2 to 4.
The second son Sathaiah also died leaving behind him the plaintiff No.5 as his legal heir. The third son Baaiah also died leaving behind him Dayanand and the plaintiff No.1 as his sole legal heirs.
(ii) It is further submitted that no partition was effected between the sons of Dakaiah during their lifetime. Hence, the plaintiffs 1 to 5 being the late grandchildren of Dakaiah are entitled 1/5 th share whereas the defendants 1 to 6 being the grand children are entitled half share in and over the suit schedule property left by Dakaiah.
(iii) It is further submitted that after death of plaintiff's father, plaintiffs shifted their residence to Hyderabad and there was a rumor namely
Srinivasulu, who died issue less due to some black-magic in the village, due to that fear the plaintiffs also shifted to Hyderabad for their livelihood. They used to come to the village now and then. The defendants 1 to 8 cultivated the suit 8 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 land on behalf of themselves and also on behalf of the plaintiffs and they are paying share in the crop to the plaintiffs and they also receiving the crop share in the suit schedule property.
(iv) It is further submitted that taking advantage of absence of the plaintiffs, the defendants got transferred their names in the revenue records.
For the first time it was recorded in the year 1975-76 name of defendants 1 to 8.
The plaintiffs allowing the defendants, who are their blood relatives and did not raise any objection for the cultivation as they are paying the crop share in the suit schedule property. Since last three or four years, the defendants denying to pay the crop share in the food grains and defendants 1 to 8 taking advantage of name of the grandfather of the plaintiffs Bala Lingam got mutated the entire suit lands in their names showing Bala Lingam as their father. It is further submitted that father of the defendants Bala Lingam is nephew to Bala Lingam, who is son of late B. Dakaiah.
(v) It is further submitted that in the month of October, 2006, the plaintiffs applied for certified copies of pahanies and came to know that the suit land was transferred in the name of defendants 1 to 5 and their mother
Kistamma without any right and without effecting any partition. The half share of the plaintiffs also got transferred in the name of the defendants 1 to 5 and late Kistamma. The plaintiffs 1 to 5 are entitled half share where as the defendants 1 to 8 are entitled half share in the suit schedule property. After coming to know about mutation, the plaintiff No.1 got issued legal notice in the 9 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 month of December, 2006 through their advocate for partition of the suit land and allotment of half share, but even after receipt of legal notice the defendants did not give any reply. They also issued another notice on 23.03.2007.
(vi) It is further submitted that the sale transactions executed by
Sathaiah in favour of Garella Jangaiah, defendant No.13 in respect of the land in
Sy.No.44/A admeasuring Ac.0-22 guntas and land in Sy.No.6/A admeasuring Ac.0- 35 ½ guntas through a registered sale deed bearing document No.400 of 1974 is not valid and not binding on the plaintiffs. The said property is liable to be partitioned.
(vii) It is further submitted that the sale transaction executed by the defendants 1, 2, 4 , 5 and 18 to 21 in favour of the defendant No.9 herein in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0-07 ½ guntas in Sy.No.30 through registered sale deed vide document No.1624 of 2014 dated 6.11.2014; the sale transaction executed by the defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.9 in respect of the land in Sy.No.30 admeasuring Ac.0-04 guntas through registered sale deed vide document No.11212 of 2015 dated 26.6.2015; the sale transaction executed by the defendant Nos. 14 and 22 to 24 in favour of the defendant No.9 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0-35 ½ guntas in Sy.No.68 through registered sale deed vide document No.9081 of 2013 dated 22.10.2013; and the sale transaction executed by the defendant No.9 in favour of the defendant
No.25 in respect of the land in Sy.Nos. 30 and 68 through registered sale deed vide document Nos. 17086 of 2014 dated 23.12.2014 and 5443 of 2014 dated 10 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 17.04.2014 are not valid and not binding on the plaintiffs, as such, the suit schedule properties are not at all partitioned. Hence the suit.
3.On the other hand, the defendants 1 to 5 filed their written statement and defendant No.3 filed additional written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5. The defendant NO.6 remained exparte on 30.07.2009. Defendants 7 and 8 filed their separate written statement.
Defendants 9 and 11 filed their separate written statement. Defendants 15 and 16 set exparte on 02.08.2017. Defendants 10, 12 and 13 remained exparte.
Defendant No.14 filed separate written statement. Defendants 15 and 16 remained exparte and defendant No.17 filed his separate written statement.
Defendants 18 to 24 remained exparte. Suti against defendant No.25 is dismissed for default.
4.The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendants 1 to 5 and additional written statement filed by the defendant NO.3 are as follows:
(i)These defendants denies that the plaintiffs and defendants constitute Hindu Joint family and they are not at all joint owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property never stood in the name of Bhoodanolla Dakaiah. The alleged grandfather of the plaintiffs by name
Bal Lingam is no way related to Venkanna. The grandfather of the defendants by name Venkanna is original owner of the suit lands. He had three sons, out of 11 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 them two died issue less. Bal Lingam, the father of the defendants 1 to 5 succeeded to the properties of his father Venkanna.
(ii) It is further submitted that Venkahha had no brother. It is also denied that Bal Lingam died leaving behind three sons namely Lingamaiah,
Sathaiah and Balaiah. It is further submitted that the claim of the plaintiffs that they are entitled half share in the suit lands is not correct. Neither the plaintiffs nor their father nor their grandfather resided in the village. The plaintiffs claiming the suit schedule property to grab the same from these defendants.
The plaintiffs never received any crop share from these defendants.
(iii) It is further submitted that the patta of the suit lands transferred in the name of defendants on the basis of their entitlement and their possession. The transfer was effected about 30 years back and the plaintiffs have kept quiet for such a long period , which clearly proves that the plaintiffs not having any claim, right or interest in the suit lands. The plaintiffs have not filed any single document to shown ownership of Dakaiah or Bal Lingam or any of their ancestors.
(iv) It is further submitted that the revenue records were correctly maintained as per entitlement. In fact, the plaintiffs issued a notice and the same was replied by these defendants. It is further submitted that the defendants 1 to 5 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit lands as absolute owners from the period of Venkanna i.e., for the last more than 50 years as absolute owners. The plaintiffs lost their right by prescription and the suit is not filed within 12 years.
12 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007
(v)It is further submitted in the additional written statement that the plaintiffs are claiming that Sathaiah, who is paternal uncle of defendants 1 to 6 died issue less and the defendants 7 and 8 are not related to late Sathaiah as daughter and wife is not correct and they are made a false claim. It is further submitted that Venkanna, grandfather of defendants 1 to 6 had three sons byname Sathaiah, Sri Ramulu and Bala Lingam. Out of the three sons, Sathaiah and Sri Ramulu died issue less as undivided members of the Hindu Coparcenery.
The said Sathaiah died much earlier to the birth of the first defendant. This defendants never saw the said Sathaiah. The defendants 7 and 8 never stayed in the house of these defendants along with the other defendants and their parents. These defendants disputed identity of defendants 7 and 8.
(vi) It is further submitted that in order to claim the suit lands, plaintiffs introduced defendants 7 and 8 heirs of late Sathaiah as a matter of fact, late Sathaiah and Sri Ramulu died issue less and Bal Lingam succeeded with the interest of Sathaiah and Sri Ramulu as surviving coparcener. The claim of the defendants 7 and 8 that they are relatives to late Sathaiah as wife and daughter is not correct and hence denied. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit.
5.The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendants 7 and 8 are as follows:
(i) These defendants denies that the plaintiffs and defendants constitute undivided Hindu joint family and B. Dakaiah is their common ancestor.
It is further submitted that the defendants are having property in Sy.Nos. 9, 17, 13 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 30,44, 68 and 72 and the said properties succeeded from the grandfather of the defendant No.8 and other defendants namely Venkanna. The said Venkanna having three sons namely Sathaiah, SriRamulu and Bala Lingam and defendants 7 and 8 getting the half share of late Sathaiah, who is the husband of defendant
No.7 and father of defendant No.8 and enjoying the joint undivided suit schedule property in between the defendants.
(ii) It is further submitted that these defendants are not aware of
Dakaiah and cultivating the property and succeeded the said property by the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that Venkaiah died leaving behind the three sons namely Sathaiah, Sri Ramulu and Bala Lingam and out of them, Sri Ramulu died issue less, the defendants 7 and 8 succeeded the property from late
Sathaiah as his wife and daughter. The said Bala Lingam also died leaving behind other defendants, who are succeed the remaining half share out of the suit schedule property.
(iii) It is further submitted that th plaintiffs are not having any right with regard to the suit lands. The late Venkanna, who was getting the property from his own. It is further submitted that the defendants 1 to 8 are cultivating the suit lands and enjoying fruits of their respective shares.
(iv) These defendants are not having any knowledge about transfer of names of the defendants 1 to 5 in the revenue records and these defendants came to know after receipt of plaint copy and these defendants have taken appropriate legal steps for wrong entires in the revenue records. These 14 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 defendants are enjoying the property jointly and the suit schedule property is undivided Mitakshara property.
(v) It is further submitted that originally, the property stands in the name of Venkanna and after his demise, the suit land was transfered in the name of Sathaiah, who is husband of defendant No.7 and father of defendant No.8.
The said Venkanna was having three sons as shown in the pedigree by the plaintiffs. As per that, the defendants 7 and 8 getting half share from late
Sathaiah, the remaining half share getting by the defendants 1 to 6 in respect of the suit schedule property. The defendants 1 to 8 are enjoying the suit schedule property jointly without any partition and they are female members of joint family, but the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 are colluded with each other and filed a false suit ignoring the share of defendants 7 and 8.
(vi) It is further submitted that the suit may be dismissed and half share may be allotted to the defendants 7 and 8 and remaining half share to the defendants 1 to 6.
6. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendants 9 and 11 are as follows:
(i) The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 8 are not joint family members.
The defendants 1 to 5 are the owners, pattedars and possessors of the suit schedule property. There was no person by name Dakaiah in the family. The plaintiffs and defendants does not constitute any Hindu joint family. Bala Lingam is not related to late Venkanna. The late Venkanna was the original owner of the 15 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 suit schedule property and he had three sons by name Sathaiah, Sri Ramulu and
Bala Lingam. The said Sathaiah and Sri Ramulu died issue less. As such, Bala
Lingam father of the defendants 1 to 5 succeeded the property left by his father
Venkanna. These defendants denied contents of Para No.3 of the plaint. The alleged Lingamaiah, Sathaiah and Balaiah and their alleged father Balaiah never stayed in the village and the said Balaiah and his sons are strangers to the defendants 1 to 5. The plaintiffs are put to strict proof of their relationship with late Venkanna and the defendants 7 and 8 are not entitled to any share in the suit schedule property.
(ii) It is further submitted that the plaintiffs appears to be land grabbers, created false story and filed present suit. The names of the defendants 1 to 5 are recorded in the revenue records since long time and for more than 40 years back. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants 7 and 8 are having any right over the suit schedule property. The revenue authorities after verification in the village recorded the names of defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in the revenue records as pattedars and possessors and they are maintaining the revenue records correctly.
(iii) The defendants 1 to 5 as absolute owners, offered to sell the land in Sy.Nos.17, 68 and 72 admeasuring Ac.3-15 ½ guntas and these defendants being interested, purchased the same for a valid sale consideration from the defendants 1 to 5 through registered sale deed vide document bearing
No. 5254 of 2013 and these defendants also purchased the land in Sy.No.30 16 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 admeasuing Ac.0-13 guntas through registered sale deed vide document Nos.
16224 of 2014 and 11212 of 2015 for a valid consideration. These defendants are inducted in possession of the suit lands by the defendants 1 to 5.
(iv) It is further submitted that these defendant also purchased adjacent lands in Sy.Nos. 17,30, 68 and 72 and developed into house sites including Sy.Nos. 17,30,68 and 72 by investing huge amounts. These defendants also constructed houses and sold to several individuals and purchasers of the houses are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The purchasers of house plots are necessary and proper parties to the suit. The land in Sy.Nos. 17, 30, 68 and 72 are not available for partition. The suit is barred by limitation.
(v) It is further submitted that in case the plaintiffs and defendants 7 and 8 are entitled to share, the Court may be pleased to pass an order to work out the equities by these defendants and allot the land in Sy.Nos. 17, 68, 72 and 30 to the defendants 1 to 5 in turn to these defendants, who are bonafide purchasers.
7.The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant
No.14 are as follows:
(i) The plaintiffs are not related to the defendants 1 to 6 and that they are neither the coparceners in the joint family nor undivided Hindu joint family members. Dakaiah is not the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 8. He was not the pattedar of the suit schedule property. It is 17 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 not correct to say that Bala Lingam is younger son of Dakaiah . There is no such person by name Dakaiah in the village.
(ii) These defendants denies contents of Para Nos. 3, 4 and 5.It is further submitted that after death of late Venkanna, his three sons by name
Sathaiah, Sri Ramulu and Bala Lingam partitioned all the properties left by him.
In the said partition, Sathaiah got land in Sy.Nos. 44 and 68 towards his share.
The defendant No.13 by name Jkangaiah purchased Ac.0-22 guntas of land in
Sy.No.44 and Ac.0-.35 ½ guntas in Sy.No.68, total Ac.1-17 ½ guntas from
Sathaiah, son of Venkanna for a valid sale consideration through registered sale deed vide document NO.400 of 1974. Since,then, the defendant No.13 was in possession and enjoyment of the said land till his death. After his death, these defendant succeeded the said property from the defendant No.13. There is no interest executed between the defendants 14 to 16. The land purchased by the defendant No.13 is not available for partition. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed against the defendants 13 to 16 in respect of the land in Sy.Nos. 44 and 68.
(iii) It is further submitted that all the suit schedule lands are situated in the different survey numbers and difference places and for want of proper boundaries and identification of the suit land, the suit is bad and on that ground, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
8.The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant
NO.17 are as follows:
18 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007
(i) The suit schedule properties are originally belongs to late
Burremolla Dakaiah. The said B.Dakaiah died leaving behind his two sons by name Venkanna and Bala Lingam. Venkanna died leaving behind his three sons namely Sathaiah,Sree Ramulu and Bala Lingam and Sathaiah died leaving behind his widow i.e., Bharathamma, the defendant No.7 herein and his daughter
Sulochana defendant No.8 herein.. Sree Ramulu died issue less, Bala Lingam died leaving behind his five sons and one daughter i.e., the defendants 1 to 6 herein.
(ii) It is further submitted that Bala Lingam died leaving behind his only son Balaiah as his legal heir and said Balaiah died leaving behind his three sons namely Lingamaiah, Sathaiah and Dayanand, the plaintiff No.1 herein.
Lingamaiah died leaving behind him three sons i.e., B. Mohan, B.Hanumanth and
B. Gopal, plaintiffs 2 to 4 herein. Sathaiah died leaving behind this defendant and her brother B.Raju the plaintiff No.5 herein.
(iii)It is further submitted that the suit schedule properties are belongs to Dakaiah, who is a common ancestor of plaintiffs, defendants 1 to 8 and 17 herein. The defendant No.17 being the daughter of Sathaiah, entitled share out of the suit schedule property. It is further substituted that recently she came to know that the above suit is pending before this Court and since the present suit is filed for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and she being the legal heir of Sathaiah, she is entitled share out of the suit schedule properties. This defendant impleaded in the suit by filing the petition Under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C.
19 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007
(iv) It is further submitted that during pendency of the suit, the defendants 1 to 6 conveyed the part of the land out of the suit schedule property to the defendants 9 to 22. The husband of the defendant No.7 conveyed part of the suit schedule property to the father of the defendant Nos.
14 to 16.the said sale deeds are invalid and not binding upon the defendants and plaintiffs as the said lands are acquired by Dakaiah common ancestor and no partition was effected among the legal heirs of Dakaiah, as such, they have no right either to alienate and they cannot deal with the share of this defendant and plaintiffs.
(v) It is further submitted that the sale deeds executed by the above defendants are not binding on the plaintiffs and also this defendant. It is further submitted that the defendant NO.9 by suppressing the present suit, conveyed the land in Sy.Nos. 17, 30, 68 and 72 to BHEL employees Cooperative Housing
Society and the said transaction is illegal and void and not binding on this defendant.
9.The suit against D.9 to D.11 was dismissed as not pressed during pendency of the suit on 08.11.2018. The suit against the land in Sy.No.9 to an extent of Ac.3-21 guntas was dismissed as not pressed on 28.11.2014.
10.Basing on the above rival contentions, the following issues are settled for trial on 10.08.2009:
1. Whether the suit schedule lands are joint family undivided properties and the plaintiffs are entitled for share?
20 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for share in the suit schedule properties?
3. To what relief?
The following additional issues are framed on 30.09.2010:
1. Whether the defendant Nos. 7 and 8 are entitled for half share in the suit schedule properties?
2.Whether the defendants 7 and 8 along with the defendants 1 to 6 are enjoying the undivided suit schedule properties jointly?
3. Whether the plaintiffs have no right or title over the suit schedule properties?
The following additional issue has been framed on 12.02.2016:
1. Whether the defendants 9 and 11 purchased Ac.0-13 guntas in
Sy.No.30 through registered sale deed document No.16224 of 2014 and Ac.3-15 ½ guntas in Sy.Nos.17, 68 and 72 through sale deed No.5254 of 2013 and were in possession and enjoyment and binding on the plaintiffs and D.1 to D.5?
2. Whether the suit property available for partition?
The following issue is framed on 10.08.2017:
Whether the sale deed executed by D.7 husband in favour of D.13 is valid and binding on the plaintiffs?
21 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007
11.Heard arguments of plaintiffs and contesting defendants.
12.In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, P.Ws. 1 and 2 examined and Exs. A.1 to A.9 were marked. During pendency of the suit, P.W.2 was recalled but as the plaintiffs failed to produce P.W.2, his evidence was eschewed on 01.04.2019. On behalf of the defendants D.Ws. 1 to 6 examined and Exs.B.1 to
B.46 marked.
13.Issue Nos.1, 2 additional issue Nos. 1 to 3 dated 30.09.2010 and
additional issue Nos. 1 and 2 dated 12.02.2016 and additional issue dated
10.08.2017:
All the above issues are inter-related, therefore, they are discussed together for the sake of convenience.
The plaintiffs initially contend that the plaintiffs and D.1 to D.5 were undivided Hindu joint family members and they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Subsequent to impleading D.7 and
D.8, the plaintiffs contend that the suit schedule properties are the undivided joint family properties of the plaintiffs and D.1 to D.8.
14.It is further contention of the plaintiffs that one Dakaiah is the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and D.1 to D.8 and he died leaving behind two sons namely Venkanna and Bala Lingam. The said Venkanna died leaving behind him three sons namely Sathaiah, Sri Ramulu and Bala Lingam. Out of them,
Sathaiah died leaving behind one daughter by name Sulochana, defendant NO.8 herein and wife by name Bharathamma, defendant No.7 herein. Sri Ramulu died 22 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 issue-less whereas the defendants 1 to 6 are the legal heirs of Bala lingam i.e., the defendants 1 to 5 are the sons and defendant No.6 is the daughter. It is contended that the younger son of Dakaiah namely Bala Lingam also died long back leaving behind him one son by name Balaiah. The said Balaiah also died leaving behind three sons namely Lingamaiah, Sathaiah and Dayanand. Out of them, Lingamaiah died leaving behind him three sons i.e., the plaintiffs 2 to 4.
The second son Sathaiah also died leaving behind him the plaintiff No.5 as his sole legal heir. The third son Balaiah also died leaving behind him Dayanand and the plaintiff No.1 as his sole legal heir.
15.It is also contended that no partition was effected between the sons of Dakaiah during his lifetime and the plaintiffs being the late grandchildren of
Dakaiah are entitled 1/5th share and defendants 1 to 8 entitled half share. It is also contended that defendants 1 to 8 cultivating the suit land on their behalf and on behalf of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are receiving crop share.
16.It is further submitted that as the plaintiffs shifted to Hyderabad for their livelihood, taking advantage of the same, the defendants 1 to 8 mutated their names in the revenue records illegally and they also contend that they issued a legal notice to the defendants demanding partition and as the defendants 1 to 5 refused to partition, they filed this suit and it is also contended that some transactions took place in the name of third parties and all the sale deeds executed by the defendants 1 to 5 are null and void and not 23 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in order to prove their case, they have relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 , 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.9.
17.P.W.1 is the second plaintiff herein and P.W.2 is the plaintiff No.4 herein. The evidence of P.W.2 was eschewed. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be considered. Coming to the evidence of P.W.1, who is said to be the son of late Lingamaiah deposed in his chief examination affidavit reiterating the plaint pleadings and he deposed that the plaintiffs are entitled half share whereas defendants 1 to 8 are entitled half share. On the other hand, the defendants 1 to 5 contend that the plaintiffs are neither the joint family members nor in joint possession of the suit schedule properties nor they are legal heirs of Dakaiah nor they received Crop share in the suit schedule properties and they are strangers to the properties and they are not entitled for partition as claimed by them and the plaint schedule properties are not available for partition and the suit si barred by limitation.
18. During the cross examination of P.W.1, he admitted that he has not filed any proof to show that the defendants 1 to 8 and themselves constitute joint family. He also admitted that he has not filed any document showing that the suit schedule properties are standing in the name of Dakaiah, their ancestor.
He admitted that the defendants 1 to 5 are sons of Bala Lingam. The defendant
No.6 is daughter of Bala Lingam. He further admitted that the suit schedule lands standing in the name of Sathaiah and Balaiah from the very beginning.
They have not filed any application before revenue authorities at the time of 24 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 preparation of ROR for the year 1979-80 or 1989-90. It is further deposed that the name of Sathaiah, son of Venkaiah reflecting in the pahanies for the year 1963 onwards till his death. The defendants 7 and 8 are living at Hyderabad in their own house. Sathaiah performed marriage of D.8 being father during his lifetime. The defendants 1 to 5 are the sons of Bala Lingam and Venkanna was father of Bala Lingam. He admitted that Sathaiah, Sri Ramulu and Bala Lingam are the sons of Venkanna and Venkanna got one younger brother by name Bala
Lingam. Balaiah was the son of Bala Lingam, younger brother of Venkaanna and the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Balaiah. Sri Ramulu died issue-less. Venkanna and Bala Lingam are the sons of Dakaiah. The plaintiffs succeeded the share of
Bala Lingam.
19.As per the admissions made by P.W.1, it is clear that there is no documentary proof that the suit schedule properties stands in the name of alleged common ancestor of the plaintiffs and D.1 to D.8 by name Dakaiah. As per the admissions made by P.W.1, the suit schedule properties are standing in the name of Sathaiah, Balaiah since very beginning and there is no record to show that the suit schedule properties were standing in the name of Dakaiah.
There is also no documentary proof that the plaintiffs and D.1 to D.8 constitute undivided Hindu joint family. Out of the suit schedule properties, the plaintiffs not pressed their claim in respect of the land in Sy. No.9 to an extent of Ac.3-21 guntas on 28.11.2014 and also not pressed the suit against D.9 to D.11 on 08.11.2018.
25 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007
20.The plaintiffs admittedly filed a memo on 25.09.2019 stating that they have settled the matter with the defendants in respect of all the properties except the land in Sy.No.44 and the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled half share in Sy.No.44 to an extent of Ac.0-22 guntas and it is also stated that the defendants already sold their share of land in the said survey number to the extent of Ac.0-22 guntas to others. So, as per the said Memo, the plaintiffs are claiming the land in Sy.No.44 to an extent of Ac.0.22 guntas out of Ac.1-04 guntas and it is also prayed to allot half share in Sy.No.44 i.e., Ac.0-22 guntas to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs neither filed any proof nor adduced any evidence regarding their joint possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties and they have also not filed any proof that they received crop share in the suit schedule properties from the defendants 1 to 8.
21.The plaintiffs in support of their contentions, relied on Exs.A.1 to
A.9. Ex.A.1 certified copy of pahani reveals that names of Balaiah and Sathaiah as pattedars and possessors in respect of the suit lands. Exs.A.2, certified copy of pahani for the year 1967-68 also reveals the names of same persons as pattedars and possessors. Ex.A.3, certified copy of pahani for the year 1975-76 also reveals the names of Sathaiah and Balaiah in respect of land in Sy.Nos.72/A and 72/AA, part of suit schedule properties. Exs.A.4,A.5 and A.6, which are the certified copies of pahanies reflecting the names of defendants 1 to 5 and their mother as pattedars and possessors in respect of the suit schedule properties and no where in Exs.A.1 to A.6, showing the names of plaintiffs as joint possession and enjoyment of the property.
26 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007
22.The plaintiffs also admitted in their pleadings in the plaint that the names of defendants 1 to 5 and their mother were mutated in the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule properties from 1974 onwards. The plaintiffs also filed Ex.A.7 and Ex.A.8 office copies of legal notices dated 28.12.2006 and 23.03.2007 respectively, which reveals that before filing the suit, the plaintiff No.1 got issued legal notice to the defendants 1 to 5 for partition the suit schedule properties and to give his share. In both Exs.A.7 and A.8, he admitted that the names of defendants 1 to 5 entered in the revenue records as pattedars and possessors in respect of the suit schedule lands.
23.Even Exs.A.7 and A.8 are showing that the defendants 1 to 5 names have been entered int the revenue records from 1977 onwards till filing of the suit. Admittedly, the plaintiffs neither challenged the entires made in the revenue records, standing in the name of defendants 1 to 5 before any authority nor they claimed the property as they are having share in the suit schedule properties till filing of the suit in the year 2007. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are residing at Hyderabad since long time and they did not put forth their claim of partition of the suit schedule properties and after more than 30 years, the plaintiffs approached the Court and filed the suit for partition on the ground that they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and the suit schedule properties are undivided joint family properties and they are having share. The claim put forth by the plaintiffs for partition of the suit schedule properties after 30 years is clearly barred by limitation. The defendants 1 to 5 and their mother are in possession and enjoyment of the suit 27 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 schedule properties even according to the admission made by the plaintiffs that from 1977 onwards they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and they never given any share to the plaintiffs in the crops raised by them to the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties.
24. The defendants 7 and 8, who are impleaded subsequently, they contend that the suit schedule properties are undivided joint family properties of the defendants and Venkanna had three sons namely Sathaiah, Sri Ramulu and Bala Lingam. Sri Ramulu died issue less and Sathaiah died leaving behind the defendant No.7 his wife and also defendant No.8 daughter. The defendant Nos.
1 to 5 are the children of Bala Lingam, who is younger brother of Sathaiah.
Sathaiah and Bala Lingam were succeeded the properties of Venkanna. They further contend that the defendants 7, 8 and defendants 1 to 5 are having equal share i.e., 50% share out of the suit schedule properties whereas the plaintiffs having half share in the suit schedule properties and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.
25.The defendants 7 and 8 claimed 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties including the claim not pressed by the plaintiffs against part of suit schedule properties. The defendants 7 and 8 to prove their contentions, they have relied on the evidence of D.W.1 and Exs. B.1 to B.24. D.W.1 is the defendant No.7 herein and alleged wife of Sathaiah. She deposed in her chief affidavit in support of her contention and contention of the defendants 7 and 8.During the cross examination, she admitted that Venkanna is father of her 28 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 husband and Dakaiah was the father of Venkanna. Venkanna and Balingam are the sons of Dakaiah. She admitted that the suit schedule lands are acquired properties of Dakaiah, which is not at all acceptable. The defendants 7 and 8 supported contention of the plaintiffs as such, during the cross examination she admitted whatever questions put by the plaintiffs. In fact, there is no documentary proof showing that Dakaiah acquired the property. P.W.1 also admitted the said fact. She further admitted that Venkanna and Bal Lingam, who are the sons of Dakaiah are having equal share in the suit schedule lands. She deposed that Venkanna got three sons namely Sathaiah, Sri Ramulu and Bala
Lingam. Balaiah was the son of Bala Lingam and grandson of Dakaiah. The name of Balaiah reflecting in revenue records. Along with her, D.1 to D.6 and D.8 and plaintiffs are having rights over the suit schedule properties.
26.During the further cross examination made by D.9 and D.11, she deposed that she does not know when Dakaiah died. She admitted that the family of Venkanna and Bala Lingam are living separately. During further cross examination, she did stated that she did not state in her written statement that the plaintiffs and defendants are Hindu undivided joint family members and getting the property from ancestor namely Dakaiah. She deposed that the plaintiffs are not having any rights over the suit lands and they are living at
Hyderabad. The children of Balaiah not having any house at Patelguda. Her ration card, Aadhar card and Pension card issued at Karvanaddress. She admitted that her husband sold Ac.2-00 out of the suit schedule land at Patelguda village about 40 yers back, which is also part of the suit schedule properties. She did not 29 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 plead in her written statement to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs. She has no house at Patelguda. She denied that her husband sold his entire share of land ,
D.7 and D.8 are not entitled share.
27.The defendants 7 and 8 examined only D.W.1 in support of their claim and they have not examined any independent witness. They have not filed any proof that they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties along with the defendants 1 to 5. They have also not filed any proof that the defendants 1 to 5 paid share of amount in the suit schedule properties and as per the admissions made by D.W.1, part of the suit schedule land was sold by her husband 40 years back, which was also included in the suit schedule lands.
The defendants 7 and 8 relied on the documentary evidence i.e., Exs.B.1 to B.24 in supp rot of their claim over entire suit schedule properties.
28.Ex.B.1 is the certified copy of Wasool Baki, which is no way helpful to the contention of the defendants 7 and 8. Ex.B.2 is the certified copy of Setwar and it is also no way helpful to the contention of the defendants 7 and 8 Ex.B.3 is the certified copy of Khasra pahani, the names of B.Sathaiah and B. Balaiah shown as pattedars and possessors in respect of the land in Sy.No.89, which is not at all subject matter of the suit. So, Ex.B.3 is also no way helpful to the case of the defendants 7 and 8.
29.Ex.B.4 is the certified copy of pahani, which reveals names of
Sathaiah, Balaiah as pattedars in respect of the suit schedule properties. Ex.B.5 also reveals the names of said persons as pattedars and possessors. Exs.B.6 and 30 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007
B.7 also showing the names of same persons as pattedars and possessors. Ex.B.8 is no way helpful to the case of the defendants 7 and 8. Ex.B.9 showing the names of Sathaiah and Jangaiah as pattedars and possessors in respect of the land in Sy.Nos. 9,44, 68/A, 72/A. Ex.B.10 showing the names of Kistamma,
Jangaiah, Kumar and Sri Ramulu as pattedars and possessors in respect of the suit schedule lands. Exs.B.11 and B.12 are also showing the names of same persons as pattedars and possessors.
30.Exs. B.13 and B.14 also shows names of defendant Nos.1 to 5 and their mother and defendant No.13 Jangaiah as pattedars and possessors of the suit schedule property. Exx. B.16 and B.17 showing the names of defendants 1 to 5 and their mother as pattedars and possessors of the suit schedule property.
The documents relied on by the defendants 7 and 8 does not reflect names of defendants 7 and 8 as pattedars and possessors of the suit schedule property. As the defendants 1 to 5 disputed relationship of defendants 7 and 8 with the deceased Sathaiah, defendants 7 and 8 relied on Exs. B.18 to B.22, which reveals that the defendant No.7 is wife and defendant NO.8 is daughter of late Sathaiah and late Sathaiah died leaving behind defendants 7 and 8.The defendants 7 and 8 also relied on Ex.B.23, which reveals that late Sathaiah sold part of suit schedule property in Sy.Nos. 44 and 68 to the defendant NO.13 for a valid sale consideration and since from the date of purchase, the defendant No.13 had been in possession and enjoyment of the said property till his death and after his death his legal heirs i.e., defendants 14, 15 and 16 are in possession and enjoyment of the said land and the name of defendant No.14 also mutated in 31 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 the revenue records. Though late Sathaiah sold part of land in Sy.Nos. 44 and 68, the defendants 7 and 8 suppressed the said fact and they are claiming the said land also.
31.The defendant No.17 also claiming the land as legal heir of Sathaiah.
The defendant No.17 was impleaded in the suit subsequent to filing of the suit as per orders in I.A.No. 644 of 2017 dated 11.09.2017. The defendant No.17 though filed written statement, did not adduce any evidence to prove her contention. So, it cannot be said that the defendant No.17 is daughter and legal heir of late Sathaiah. The defendants 7 and 8 also failed to contend that they are entitled half share in the suit schedule properties whereas the defendants 1 to 5 entitled half share as per their contention in the written statement, but contrary to the same, D.W.1 deposed that the plaintiffs are having half share and defendants 7 and 8 are having 1/4th share, defendants 1 to 5 are having 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. There is a variation in the pleadings and proof of case of the defendants 7 and 8.
32. It is contended by the defendants 7 and 8 that the defendants 7 and 8 and late Sathaiah are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and they received share in the suit schedule properties from the defendants 1 to 5. Absolutely there is no evidence to prove that the defendants 7 and 8 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and they received share out of the suit schedule properties. During the cross examination of D.W.1, she admitted that her husband sold Ac.2-00 of land at 32 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007
Patelguda about 40 years back and she also did not mention the same in her written statement. D.W.1 further admitted that she has no house at Patelguda.
She further admitted that the plaintiffs are not having any rights over the suit schedule lands and they are living at Hyderabad. She also admitted that they are living at Karvan, Hyderabad. She also admitted that she did not state in their written statement that the plaintiffs and defendants are undivided Hindu joint family members. She also admitted that the properties are succeeded from
Venkanna.
33. Admittedly, the plaintiffs not pressed the claim against the land in
Sy.No.9 admeasuring Ac.3-21 guntas, which was set-aside on the application filed by the defendants 7 and 8 as per orders in I.A.No.1265 of 2015 dated 08.10.2015. The plaintiffs and some of the defendants jointly filed Memo not pressing the claim of the plaintiffs in the land in Sy.No.9 admeasuring Ac.3-21 guntas on the ground that the said land was alienated to one V. Madhava reddy by the defendants 1 to 5 and the plaintiffs settled the matter with the said
Madhavareddy and not pressed the said claim. The said Madhava reddy was impleaded as defendant No.12 in this case. Though he engaged an Advocate, but he did not contest the matter by filing written statement and remained exparte.
34.The defendants 7 and 8 left the village about 40 years back and they never claimed the suit schedule properties till they are impleaded as defendants 7 and 8 in the suit. Admittedly, the defendants 1 to 5 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and names of defendants 1 to 5 also 33 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 mutated in the revenue records. The defendants 1 to 5 sold part of suit schedule lands to the defendants 9 to 11 and to the said Madhava reddy, defendatn
No.12. As admitted by D.W.1 late Sathaiah during his lifetime alienated the part of suit schedule lands to defendant No.13 under registered sale deed. The claim of defendants 7 and 8 after 40 years is barred by limitation under Article 110 of
Limitation Act as the claim of share should be within 12 years from the date of refusal and the defendants 7 and 8 are having knowledge that the defendants 1 to 5 enjoying the suit schedule lands since for a period of 40 years and their names also mutated in the revenue records.
35.The plaintiffs contend that the suit schedule properties originally belongs to Dakaiah and he died leaving behind Venkanna and Bala Lingam. The defendants 1 to 5 denied the said allegations. The burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove that Dakaiah was the original owner of the suit schedule lands, but absolutely there is no evidence to prove that Dakaiah was the original owner of the suit schedule lands.
36.It is further contended by the plaintiffs that Dakaiah got two sons i.e., Venkanna and Bala Lingam. The plaintiffs are the branch of Bala Lingam and they are entitled half share and they also contend that Venkanna got three sons namely Sathaiah, who died leaving behind the defendants 7 and 8, Sri Ramulu, who died issue less and Bala Lingam, who died leaving the defendants 1 to 6. The defendants admitted that Venkanna is the grandfather of the defendants 1 to 6 and they also admitted that Sri Ramulu died issue less. The land of Sri Ramulu 34 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 succeeded by the defendants 1 to 6 after death of Sri Ramulu. Names of defendants 1 to 6 mutated in respect of the share of Sri Ramulu and Sathaiah died leaving behind defendants 7 and 8 and during his lifetime, he sold part of land in Sy.Nos.44 and 68 to the defendant No.13 and thereafter, Sathaiah went to Hyderabad about 40 years back and he had been living in Hyderabad since then and during his lifetime, he did not put forth any claim over the suit schedule lands and only after filing of the suit by the plaintiffs, the defendants 7 and 8 came before this Court and put forth their claim of share, which is clearly barred by limitation in view of Article 110 of Limitation Act.
37.The plaintiffs, who are claiming half share over the suit schedule lands also left the village about 40 years back and they are residing at Hyderabad and the evidence on record establish that since 40 years, the plaintiffs never claimed the suit schedule properties and their names also not entered in the revenue records and he revenue records, relied on by the plaintiffs and defendants 7 and 8 would show the names of defendants 1 to 6 as exclusive pattedars and possessors and the revenue records further show that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 never in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.
38.The plaintiffs filed Memos not pressing the claim against the land in
Sy.No.9 to an extent of Ac.3-12 guntas and they also not pressed the claim against defendants 9 to 11, who are the subsequent purchasers of part of suit schedule lands and the plaintiffs as per the Memo filed by them dated 35 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 25.09.2009, they are claiming only share to an extent of Ac.0-22 guntas in land in
Sy.No.44/A alone. The part of land in Sy.No.44 was already alienated by late
Sathaiah in favour of defendant No.13 and the remaining land is in possession and enjoyment of the defendants 1 to 6 and the defendants 1 to 6 enjoying the said land as absolute owners and the plaintiffs never claimed the said property and the plaintiffs neither in joint possession nor enjoying the property nor they shared the land crop in the said property. Therefore, the plaintiffs failed to prove that they are having share in the land in Sy.No.44.
39.The claim of the plaintiffs also clearly barred by limitation in view of
Article 110 of Limitation Act. Therefore, they are not entitled any share in the suit schedule lands like defendants 7 and 8. The plaintiffs got amended the suit and contend that the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant No.13 in respect of the land in Sy.No.44/A to an extent of Ac.0-22 guntas and Sy.No.68 admeasuring 35 ½ guntas under registered sale deed is not valid and not binding on them. The defendant No.13 is no more and the defendant Nos. 14 to 16 are the legal heirs of defendant No.13. The defendant NO.14 filed his written statement and contend that his father i.e., late Jangaiah purchased part of suit schedule land under sale deed vide document NO.400 of 1074 and till the death of D.13, he was in possession and enjoyment of the said property and after his death, defendants 14 to 16 are in possession of the said property and they names also mutated in the revenue records.
36 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007
40.The defendant No.14 relied on the evidence of D.Ws. 4,5, 6 and Exs.
B.30 to B.45. D.W.4, who is the defendant No.14 herein and son of D.13 has categorically deposed that his father purchased part of suit schedule land i.e., to an extent of Ac.0-22 guntas in Sy.No.44 and Ac.0.35 ½ guntas in Sy.No.68 under a registered sale deed No.400 of 1974 for a valid sale consideration and the defendant No.14 filed original sale deed of his father marked as Ex.B.30, which was scribed in Urdu. The defendant No.14 filed translated copy, which reveal;s that Jangaiah, defendant No.13 purchased land on 25.03.1974 from late Sathaiah for a valid sale consideration.
41.Exs. B.31 and B.45 relied on by the defendant No.14 would show that the name of Jangaiah was mutated in the revenue records in respect of the said purchased property and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the said property till his death and thereafter name of D.14 mutated in the revenue records and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property.
D.W.4 was cross examined by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendants 7 and 8, but nothing has been elicited to disbelieve his evidence. The plaintiffs and defendants 7 and 8 admitted transaction but they contend that
Ex.B.30 is not binding on them. If the plaintiffs and defendants 7 and 8 able to establish that they are entitled for partition, Ex.B.30 is not binding on them.
However, they failed to do so. Therefore, Ex.B.30 and B.31 to B.45 establish that
D.13 purchased the lands in Sy.No.44 to an extent of Ac.0-22 guntas and
Sy.No.68 to an extent of Ac.0-35 ½ guntas and since then he had been in 37 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 possession and enjoyment of the said lands till his death and after his death, name of D.14 has been mutated as his legal heir.
42.The plaintiffs admitted sale deed Ex.B.30. The defendants 7 and 8 admitted Ex.B.30 and they got marked certified copy of sale deed Ex.B.23. The defendants 1 to 5 also admitted Ex.B.30 and they are also got marked copy of said sale deed Ex.B.25. Exs.B.23 and B.25 are equivalent to Ex.B.30. D.W.2, who is the defendant No.1 herein admitted alienation of the said land to defendant
No.13 by late Sathaiah in the year 1974 under Ex.B.30.even though late Sathaiah during his life time alienated the property to D.13 under registered sale deed and delivered possession of the same to D.13, the plaintiffs and defendants 7 and 8 claiming share in the said property, which is not maintainable and they came to the Court with unclean hands by suppressing the fact of alienation of the property to the defendant No.13.
43.The evidence of D.Ws. 5 and 6, who are the third parties, who categorically deposed that D.13 purchased the land in Sy.Nos.44 and 68 and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the said property till his death. D.Ws.5 and 6 cross examined by the plaintiffs and D.7 and D.8, but nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the evidence of D.Ws. 5 and 6. So, Ex.B.30 is binding on the plaintiffs and D.7 and D.8. The D.14 proved that the land in Sy.No.44 to an extent of Ac.0-22 guntas and land in Sy.No.68 to an extent of Ac.0-35 ½ guntas purchased by his father D.13 from late Sathaiah under registered sale deed
Ex.B.30 and his father had been in possession and enjoyment of the said 38 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 property till his death and thereafter the defendants 14 to 16 have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property and the said property is not at all undivided joint family property and not available for partition as contended by the defendant No.14, who is son of D.13.
44.The plaintiffs contend that the defendants 1, 2, 4 , 5 and defendants 18 to 21 executed sale deed in favour of D.9 in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.0-7 ½ guntas in Sy.No.30 under registered sale deed No.16224 of 2014
dated 4.11.2014, D.4 executed sale deed in favour of D.9 in respect of the land
to an extent of Ac.0-04 guntas in Sy.No.30 under registered sale deed No.11212 of 2015 dated 26.05.2015, the defendants 14, 22 and 24 executed sale deed in favour of the defendant No.9 in respect of land to an extent of Ac.0-35 ½ guntas, in Sy.No.68 through registered sale deed vide document NO.9081/12
dated 22.10.2013 and the sale transaction executed by the defendant No.9 in
favour of the defendant No.25 in respect of the land in Sy.Nos. 30 and 68 through registered sale deeds bearing document Nos. 17086/14, dated 23.12.2014 and document No.5443/2014 dated 17.04.2014 and they are valid and binding on the plaintiffs.
45. Defendant Nos.9 and 11 filed their written statement denying partition of the suit schedule properties and in order to prove their contention, the defendants 9 and 11 relied on the evidence of D.W.3 and Exs. B.27 to B.29.
D.W.3 is one of the Managing Partner of D.9 and he deposed in support of contention of the defendants 9 and 11. He denied share of the plaintiffs and also 39 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 defendants 7 and 8 and he deposed that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 8 are not joint family members. He further deposed that the names of defendants 1 to 5 are recorded as pattedars and possessors in the revenue records since from 40 years and therefore, the plaintiffs, D.7 and D.8 have no manner of right in the said property and he deposed that the defendants 7 and 8 being the owners offered to sell the land in Sy.Nos. 17, 30, 68 and 72 total admeasuring Ac.3-28 ½ guntas and they purchased the said land under registered sale deed vide document Nos. 5254 of 2013, 16224 of 2014 and 11212 of 2015 and they are bonafide purchasers and they are in possession and enjoyment of the said property.
46.D.W.3 also deposed that they purchased the land in Sy.Nos. 17, 30,68 and 72 and developed the said land into house sites and the purchasers of land in
Sy.Nos. 17, 30, 68 and 72 are also necessary parties to the suit. He also deposed that late Sathaiah, who is husband of D.7 and father of D.8 sold his share of property long back and left the village. He was cross examined by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and D.7 and D.8, but nothing was elicited to disbelieve his evidence and admittedly, defendant No.9 purchased the properties under
Exs.B.27 to B.29. However, during pendency of the suit, they purchased. If the plaintiffs, D.7 and D.8 establish that they are entitled for partition of the suit schedule properties, then Exs.B .27 to B.29 are not binding on them. But, they failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are undivided Hindu joint family properties and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule 40 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 lands along with D.1 to D.5 and they are entitled for share. Therefore, Exs. B.27 to B.29 are valid and binding on the plaintiffs and D.7 and D.8.
47.The defendants 9 and 11 proved that they have purchased part of suit land under Exs. B.27 to B.29 and they are valid documents. The defendants 1 to 5 being the pattedars and possessors of the suit schedule property, they sold the property to D.9 and D.11 and therefore, transactions under Exs.B.27 to B.29 are not hit by Lispendence Under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act.
48.The defendants 1 to 5 in support of their contention, they relied on the evidence of D.W.2. D.W.2, who is the defendant No.1 herein categorically deposed in support of case of the defendants 1 to 5 and he deposed that late
Sathaiah sold his share of property and left the village. D.W.2 was cross examined by the plaintiffs as well as D.7 and D.8, but nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the case of the defendants 1 to 5. The evidence of D.W.2 and documents filed by the plaintiffs i.e., Exs. A.1 to A.6 and Exs. B.1 to B.17 establish the claim of the defendants 1 to 5 that they being legal heirs of Bala Lingam, they succeeded the suit schedule lands from Bala Lingam and they are in possession and enjoyment of the schedule lands after death of Bala Lingam and they established that the suit schedule properties are not undivided Hindu joint family properties and they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the defendants 1 to 5 and their mother as legal heirs of Bala Lingam. They succeeded the share of Sri Ramulu, who is son of Venkanna whereas Sathaiah sold his share of property and left the village.
41 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007
49. The plaintiffs, D.7 and D.8 failed to prove that they are undivided
Hindu joint family members and they are entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit lands. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for partition of the suit schedule properties. The defendants 7 and 8 also not entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule lands and they are not the members of undivided Hindu joint family as contended by them.
Therefore, they are also not entitled for any share in the suit schedule properties.
Accordingly, I answered issue Nos. 1 and 2 dated 10.08.2009 against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants 1 to 5. Additional issue Nos. 1 and 2 dated 30.09.2010 answered against the defendants 7 and 8 and in favour of defendants 1 to 5. Additional issue No.3 dated 30.09.2010 answered against the plaintiffs. Additional issue No.1 dated 12.02.2016 answered in favour of the defendants 9 and 11 and against the defendants 7 and 8. Additional issue No.2
dated 12.02.2016 is answered against the plaintiffs and defendants 7 and 8.
Additional issue dated 10.08.2017 is answered in favour of the defendant No.14
and against the plaintiffs and defendants 7 and 8.
50.ISSUE NO. 3 : To what relief:
In view of my finding on issue Nos. 1, 2 dated 10.08.2009, additional issue Nos. 1 to 3 dated 30.09.2010, additional issue Nos. 1 and 2 dated 12.02.2016 and additional issue dated 10.08.2017, the plaintiffs, D.7 and D.8 failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are undivided Hindu joint family 42 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007 properties and available for partition and the plaintiffs, D.7 and D.8 are not entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.
Therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.
51.In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13 th day of April., 2022.
VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
SANGAREDDY
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PLAINTIFFS
P.W.1 : B. Mohan P.W.2 : B. Gopal (Eschewed)
DEFENDANTS:
D.W.1: B. Bhageerthamma D.W.2: B. Kumar D.W.3: M. Ch. Raghava Rao D.W.4: Garela Krishna D.W.5: Kodakanchi Krishna D.W.6: Eerla Anjaneyulu
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
PLAINTIFFS
Ex.A.1: C.C of pahani for the year 1959-60. Ex.A.2: C.C of pahani for the year 1967-68. Ex.A.3: C.C of pahani for the year 1975-76. Ex.A.4: C.C of pahani for the year 1995-96. Ex.A.5: C.C of pahani for the year 2000-01. Ex.A.6: C.C of pahani for the year 200305. Ex.A.7: Office copy of legal notice dated 28.12.2006 Ex.A.8: Office copy of legal notice Dt: 23.3.2007. Ex.A.9: Postal receipts.
43 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007
DEFENDANTS:
Ex.B.1:: C.C of Wasool Baki. Ex.B.2: C.C of Setwar. Ex.B.3: C. Cof Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55. Ex.B.4: C.C of Pahani Patrika for the year 1963. Ex.B.5: C.C of pahani for the year 1969-70. Ex.B.6: C.C of pahani Patrika for the year 1975-76 Ex.B.7: C.C of pahani Patrika for the year 1976-77. Ex.B.8:C.C of pahani Patrika for the year 1979-80. Ex.B.9: C.C of pahani Patrika for the year 1980-81. Ex.B.10: C.C of pahani Patrika for the year 1981-82. Ex.B.11: C.C of pahani Patrika for the year 1982-83. Ex.B.12: C.C of pahani Patrika for the year 1983-84. Ex.B.13: C.C of pahani Patrika for the year 1984-85. Ex.B.14: C.C of pahani Patrika for the year 1985-86. Ex.B.15: C.C of pahani Patrika for the year 2006-07 to 2012 -2013. Ex.B.16: C.C of ROR for the year 1979-80. Ex.B.17: C.C of ROR for the year 1989-90. Ex.B.18: Ration Card. Ex.B.19: Aadhar Card. Ex.B.20: Widow pension pass book. Ex.B.21: Aadhar card pertaining to defendant No.8. Ex.B.22: Pass book issued by the SBH, Gudimalkapur branch. Ex.B.23: C.C of registered sale deed executed by Sathaiah on 25.03.1974 document No.400 of 1974. Ex.B.24: C.C of sessla pahani for the year 1955-56,1956-57 and 57-58. Ex.B.25: Sale deed in Urdu. Ex.B.26: True English transalationof Ex.B.25. Ex.B.27: C.C of registered sale deed No.5254/2013. Ex.B.28: C.C of registered sale deed No. 16224/2014. Ex.B.29: C.C of registered sale deed No. 11212/2015. Ex.B.30: Orig8inal sale deed dated 25.03.1974 executed by B. Sathaiah in favour of G. Jangaiah alogn with English translated copy. Ex.B.31:C.C of pahani for the Fasli 1424. Ex.B.32: C.C of pahani for the Fasl 1425. Ex.B.33 C.C of pahani for the Fasl 1426. Ex.B.34: C.C of pahani for the Fasl1427. Ex.B.35: C.C of pahani for the year 1973-74. Ex.B.36: C.C of pahani for the year 1976-77. Ex.B.37: C.C of pahani for the year 1979-80. Ex.B.38: C.C of pahani for the year 1985-86. Ex.B.39: C.C of pahani for the year 1990-91. Ex.B.40: C.C of pahani for the year 1995-96.
44 Of 44 O.S. 75 of 2007
Ex.B.41: C.C of pahani for the year 2000-01. Ex.B.42: C.C of pahani for the year 2005-06. Ex.B.43: C.C of pahani for the year 2010-11. Ex.B.44: C.C of pahani for the year 2011-12. Ex.B.45: C.C of pahani for the year 2014-15. Ex.B.46: photo
VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
SANGAREDDY