Original Suit No.124/2012 Page 1 of 22
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT :: RAMANNAPET
MONDAY, THE 30th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT: SRI A.PRADEEP,
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RAMANNAPET
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.124 OF 2012
Between:- Peddaboina Buchaiah, S/o.Laxmaiah, Aged: 76 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o.Chityal village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
...Plaintiff
AND
1. Mekala Mallaiah, S/o.Sailu, Aged: 79 years,
2. Mekala Bhadramma, W/o.Mallaiah, Aged: 75 years,
3. Mekala Anjaiah, S/o.Mallaiah, Aged: 58 years,
4. Mekala Krishnaiah, S/o.Mallaiah, Aged: 54 years,
5. Mekala Sathaiah, S/o.Mallaiah, Aged: 51 years,
6. Mekala Simhadri, S/o.Mallaiah, Aged: 48 years,
7. Peddaboina Sathamma, W/o.Buchaiah, Aged: 69 years,
8. Peddaboina Maheshwar, S/o.Buchaiah, Aged:54 years, All are R/o.Dubbaka village of Ramannapet Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.
9. Boddu Sujatha, W/o.Sathaiah, Aged: 54 years, R/o.H.No.1-6-287, Musheerabad, Zamisthanpur, Hyderabad.
10. Jakkula Nirmala, W/o.Venkataiah, Aged: 49 years, R/o.Narsapuram village of Athmakur Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.
11. Udari Sulochana, W/o.Satyanarayana, Aged: 47 years, R/o.H.No.30-31-7, Kakaninagar, Chuttugunta, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
...Defendants
Claim: - Suit for Partition and Separate Possession
This suit is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Yadagiri , Advocate for plaintiff, and that of Sri V.Hanumanthu Goud, Advocate for defendant no.7, and Sri M.Venkat Reddy, Advocate for defendants no.9 to 11, having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession declaring that, the plaintiff and defendants are entitled for 1/9th share each in the plaint schedule property. Further, prayed to appoint a commissioner to make partition of the plaint schedule property by metes and bounds according to the rights as declared in preliminary decree and to allot one such separated share to the
Dt.30-09-2024
Original Suit No.124/2012 Page 2 of 22 plaintiff. Further, prayed to pass a decree of final partition in accordance with the partition effected by the commissioner and confirmed by the Hon’ble Court and to put the plaintiff in exclusive possession of the property allotted to him.
2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-
That, the plaintiff and defendant no.7 are husband and wife and the defendant no.8 is their son. Whereas, the defendants no.1 and 2 are husband and wife and defendants no.3 to 6 are their sons. Further, the defendant no.1 is own brother of defendant no.7. That, the plaintiff and the defendant’s no.7 and 8 resided at Chityal
Village and Mandal till 1983. In the year 1983, the plaintiff and the defendants have jointly purchased a total extent of Ac.19.09gts in sy.nos.240, 245, 246, 252, 253, 254, 255, 257 and 267 of Dubbaka village of Ramannapet Mandal, under two registered sale deeds dated 28-04-1983 bearing documents nos.462/83 and 468/83 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Ramannapet. The said registered sale deeds have been implemented in the revenue records and necessary amendments have been carried out in the record of rights incorporating the names of the plaintiff and defendants as joint pattedars and possessors of the suit lands. After purchase of the suit lands the plaintiff and defendant’s no.7 and 8 shifted to Dubbaka village to look after the cultivation in the suit land.
3. In this regard, it is submitted further that, the partition of the suit land has not been affected so far among the plaintiff and defendants by metes and bounds and they are cultivating the same on tentative arrangements. While so about 10 years ago there arose disputes between the plaintiff and his wife/defendant no.7. Unable to bear mental torture by the defendant no.7, the plaintiff left the village and started residing at his native village Chityal. However the plaintiff continued to be in joint possession of the suit land along with the defendants till today. The plaintiff being
Dt.30-09-2024
Original Suit No.124/2012 Page 3 of 22 desirous of separating his share in the suit land demanded the defendants on 20-06- 2012 for partition of the suit lands and for separate possession of his 1/9th share therein. But the defendants refused for it. The plaintiff came to know that the defendant’s no.7 and 8 have got the land of the plaintiff in the suit land transferred in their favour behind his back by managing the Revenue Officials, without there being any orders by the competent authority for the said purpose. The said facts constituted cause of action to seek partition of the suit land in to 9 equal shares and to be put in separate possession of his share therein. Hence, the suit.
4. The defendant no.7 filed his written statement contending that, the suit suffers from mis-joinder and non-joinder of proper and necessary parties and so suit is liable to be dismissed. That, the plaintiff has no concern with suit schedule property and has no right to ask for partition of suit schedule property and that he was never in possession. That, the plaintiff had not valued to the suit property properly and paid proper Court fees. That, the plaintiff was never in joint possession of suit schedule property much less on the date of the suit. The suit is barred by limitation. The suit is not maintainable being out of possession. That, the plaintiff has to pay Court fee on 3/4th market value and for recovery of possession.
5. Further the defendant no.7 admit the relationship of the parties to the suit and that defendant no.7 is own brother of defendant No.1. That, this defendant is an illiterate and cannot speak out the year of her stay at several places. Further he admit that, this defendant lived at Chityal sometime in the past. Now she is residing at Dubbaka village. Further he denied that, plaintiff and defendants purchased the suit property jointly on 28-04-1983 under two registered documents. This defendant is illiterate, ignorant and innocent. In fact the suit property is purchased half share only by this defendant exclusively by investing the money earned from her physical
Dt.30-09-2024
Original Suit No.124/2012 Page 4 of 22 labour and it is now found that the plaintiff in collusion with defendants No.1 to 6 had brought up the said sale deeds document No.462/83 and 468/83 in their name while in fact this defendant had invested the consideration for purchase of suit lands and the work of the registration was entrusted to the plaintiff as this defendant in those days was not required to appear before the Sub-Registrar in her capacity as purchaser and taking the advantage of such position plaintiff and defendant no.1 appears to have manipulated matters to their advantage and brought up false and fictitious sale deeds in their name. Minors names also shown as purchasers. In fact, the defendant’s no.4, 5, 6 and 8 were minors and that it is false to say that, they contributed amounts for purchase of suit land.
6. The defendant no.7 further submits that, her purchase was recognized by the revenue authorities, R.O.R, pattadar pass book and title deed were issued to this defendant on 23-07-1995 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramannapet/Revenue
Divisional Officer, Bhongir. The plaintiff has become absolute owner of the following lands i.e., Ac.00.07gts in sy.no.253, Ac.00.07gts in sy.no.253, Ac.00.06gts in sy.nio.254, Ac.00.06gts in sy.n.254, Ac.00.10gts in sy.no.255, Ac.00.10gts in sy.no.255, Ac.00.23gts in sy.no.240, Ac.00.01gts in sy.no.246, Ac.00.01 ½ gts in sy.no.246, Ac.00.10gts in sy.no.252, Ac.00.06gts in sy.no.257, Ac.00.30gts in sy.no.261, Ac.00.03gts in sy.no.245, and Ac.00.02gts in sy.no.246, totally admeasuring Ac.03.02gts of dry land situated at Dubbaka village of Ramannapet
Mandal, Nalgonda District, and so this defendant is being recognized and accepted by all concerned as the true owner and because of her title and ownership she sold the property to her daughters on 05-06-2008 under the sale deeds document no.1084/2008, 1085/2008 and 1086/2008 of Sub-Registrar Office, Ramannapet. The purchasers under the above documents who are presently in possession and
Dt.30-09-2024
Original Suit No.124/2012 Page 5 of 22 enjoyment by virtue of Registered Sale deeds are Boddu Sujatha, Jakkula Nirmala and Vudari Sulochana who are in possession and enjoyment of the respective purchased properties long anterior to the present suit.
7. The defendant no.7 further submits that, the sale considerations under the above (3) sale deeds received by this defendant was utilized for the marriage of daughter by name "Ranamma". The purchasers are presently in possession and enjoying ownership and possessory rights. These sales and passing of considerations, the marriage are all with the knowledge and consent of plaintiff and defendants and so they are stopped to ever differently. That, the suit suffers from non-joinder of proper and necessary parties and so the suit is liable to be dismissed as the rights of third parties are involved whose rights are to be protected by them by appropriate representation to the Hon'ble Court.
8. The defendant no.7 further submits that In fact this matter was placed before the village elders on 03-06-2004 and in a voluntary manner, the plaintiff, this defendant and eight defendant brought it up a consent Agreement to that effect which is signed and attested by plaintiff, the 7th and 8th defendants and several village elders as witnesses. In the presence of all the above records the plaintiff has no share as claimed by him. That, the plaintiff has no 1/9th share and he has no right to separation. That, the defendant’s no.1 to 6 are in collusion with plaintiff. This suit is filed only to harass this defendant. This suit is frivolous. The 8th defendant is also in collusion. That, the suit is barred by limitation. That, there is no cause of action to file the suit. Being out of possession plaintiff has to pay advolorem Court fee and seek remedy of recovery of possession. Without with the suit is not maintainable.
Thus, it is clear in the above circumstances and facts, there are no bonafides in the
Dt.30-09-2024
Original Suit No.124/2012 Page 6 of 22 suit and the same is lacking necessary merits. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with costs, in the interest of justice.
9. The defendant no.9 to 11 filed their written statement contending that, the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of partition and separate possession over the schedule properties are totally false, frivolous, vexatious devoid of truth and not maintainable either in law on facts as such the same is liable to be dismissed on this score. That, the suit of the plaintiff filed and framed is tailored on the basis of fabricated documents brought in to existence for the purpose of the suit. That, the plaintiff misread facts and in a hurried manner got filed the above suit though there are no merits, on this ground alone, the suit of the plaintiff has to be non suited. The suit of the plaintiff suffers from the defect of Suppressio Vari and Suggstio False.
That the suit as framed and filed is neither maintainable in law, or on facts and the same suffers from several legal infirmities and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. That, the plaintiff has suppressed all the material facts as such the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. As a matter of fact, the defendants No.9 to 11 are no way concerned with the family affairs of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 8, later these defendants are impleaded as parties after a long time from the date of institution of the case. The material facts would be urged in the additional grounds of this written statement.
10. The defendant no.9 to 11 further submits that, these defendants No.9 to 11 are not aware about the relationship in between the plaintiff defendant No.7 and other defendants. That, the plaintiff contended that the suit schedule lands are purchased jointly through document No.462 and 468 of 1983, if such is the case, the plaintiff ought to have record his share of land on his name, but he failed to so, as such it is clear that the land duly purchased through the lands not at all belongs to
Dt.30-09-2024
Original Suit No.124/2012 Page 7 of 22 the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff is given notice to put to strict proof of the same.
That, there is no cause of action and the alleged date of cause of action i.e., 20-06- 2012 is invented one and the plaintiff is given notice to put to strict proof of the same.
That, the court fee jurisdiction and limitation, the plaintiff did not valued the suit schedule land as per the version of the plaintiff he left the village and residing at
Chityala as such he never in actual and physical possession as such he ought to have pay the advalorem court fee but the plaintiff paid fixed court fee, further the suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by limitation. As such the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
11. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS:-
1. That, the Plaintiff, and others jointly purchased the agricultural lands i.e., measuring Ac.14.15gts from its original consideration who executed registered sale deed No.46/1983 dated 28-04-1983. The defendant No.7 along with some others jointly purchased and an extent of Ac.04.34gts through sale deed No.468/1983 dated 28-04-1983.
Subsequently the said land was recorded on the names of the respective purchaser in accordance with their ratio of share, and they have been enjoying their respective shares and after due enquiry pattedar pass book and title deed also issued in their favor.
2. It is pertinent note that, the defendant No.7 has purchased the land through sale deed No.468 of 1983, as such the plaintiff is nothing to do with the said land, since it is the herself acquired property. It further submitted that in due course the defendant No.7 has purchased the land of the other purchaser in document no.468/1983, the said extent
Dt.30-09-2024
Original Suit No.124/2012 Page 8 of 22 of land was recorded on her name under R.O.R. Thus the defendant has become absolute owner of totally extent of Ac.04.34gts.
3. It is submitted that the defendant No.7 was in need of money as such she intended to sell her owned and possessed land of Ac.04.34gts.
After knowing the same Boddu Sujatha, W/o Sathaiah, R/o.Pallivada village, Voodhari Sulochana, W/o.Satyanarayana R/o.Vijayawada, and
Jakkala Nirmala, W/o.Venkataiah, R/o.Narsapuram village of Valigonda
Mandal come forward to purchase the and of the defendant No.7, accordingly the defendant No.7 sold an extent of Ac.01.02 ½ gts each to the said three persons for a valuable consideration, after receipt of entire sale consideration she executed registered sale deed
No.1084/2008 dated 05-06-2008, 1086/2008 dated 05-06-2008, and 1085/2008 dated 05-06-2008 on the rolls of S.R.O Ramannapet and vacant possession also delivered in their favour, since then they have been in actual and physical possession over the said lands as absolute owners and their names are also recorded in all revenue records pattedar pass books and title deeds are also issued in their favor. Their names have been appearing in Col. No.12 & 13 of the pahanies also.
During course of purification of land records the government has issued e-passbooks in their favor their names are also uploaded in the
Dharani. The remaining land was gifted in favor of her son
Mr.Peddaboina Mahesh @ Maheshwar who is the defendant No.8 herein, his name also recorded in all revenue records after due enquiry pattedar pass book, title deed and e-passbook also issued in his favor.
Dt.30-09-2024
Original Suit No.124/2012 Page 9 of 22
4. It is submitted that in receipt times the value of the properties increased into many folds and intended to grab the same from the possession of
Sujatha, Sulochana and Nirmala, in the said process the plaintiff, defendant No.7 and defendant No.8 colluded with each other and got filed the above suit by the plaintiff for partition, since they are well aware that there is no land available for partition with a view to cause loss to the defendants No.9 to 11.
5. It is submitted that as stated supra, the plaintiff, defendants No.7 and 8 colluded with each other, in the said process, the defendant No.8 without having manner of right or title and interest, he has been interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the Sujatha,
Sulochana and Nirmala, in order safe guard their right and title which are acquired through registered sale deeds No.1084, 1085 and 1086 of 2008, filed individual suits against Mr.Mahesh vide O.S.No.188 of 2018, 189 of 2018 and 190 of 2018 on the file of this Hon'ble Court seeking the relief of grant of perpetual injunction and the same is pending for consideration, the said matter is coming for cross examination of the P.W.1 in the said three suit.
6. It is submitted that in order to disturb the court proceedings in
O.S.No.188 of 2018 to 190 of 2018, the plaintiff with a malafide
intention, he made an application before this Hon'ble Court to impaled the defendants No.9 to 11 as parties to the above proceedings, if the plaintiff is very much interested he would have taken such step in the year 2008 or at least in the year 2010, but absolutely there is no need not to wait till in the year 2018 taking such steps to implead the
Dt.30-09-2024
Original Suit No.124/2012 Page 10 of 22 defendants more particularly to say after filing the above (3) suits.
Apart from that the plaintiff filed the above suit in the year 2012 so by that time the defendant No.7 sold her owned and possessed property in favor of the defendants No.9 to 11 by way of registered sale deeds 1084 to 1086 of 2008, so it is very clear that the plaintiff with a malafide intention got impleaded the defendants No.9 to 11 as parties though they are no way concerned with the sale transaction, since the property duly sold by the defendant No.7 is herself acquired property which was acquired though sale deed No.468 of 1983.
7. It is submitted that plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 8 are neither the owners nor the possessors over the owned and possessed land of the defendant No.9 to 11 since the defendant No.7 has seized her ownership right when she sold her owned and possessed property through registered sale deeds. Apart from all the defendants No.9 to 11 has acquired the adviser’s possession over their owned and possessed lands as such the plaintiff nothing to with the ownership and title of the defendants No.9 to 11.
8. It is submitted that there are no merits in the suit of the plaintiff lack of boanafides and the plaintiff did not approach the Hon'ble Court with clean hands. That the defendant No 9 to 11 are reserving their right to file additional written statement if found necessary in future. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant’s no.9 to 11 with costs, in the interest of justice.
12. On the basis of above pleadings the following issues were framed.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition of the suit schedule property as prayed for?
Dt.30-09-2024
Original Suit No.124/2012 Page 11 of 22
2. To what relief?
13. Initially, the present suit was filed against defendant no.1 to 8. Subsequently,
before the commencement of cross examination of PW1, the defendant’s no.9 to 11
were impleaded into the suit. The defendant’s no.1 to 6 remained exparte, they neither appeared nor contested the case. The defendant no.7 filed written statement through her advocate. The defendant no.8 appeared and engaged advocate but failed to file the written statement as such he was set exparte on 16-09-2019. After the defendant’s no.9 to 11 were brought on record, they engaged advocate and filed their written statement.
14. After completion of trial, the learned advocates on record have submitted their oral arguments. The counsel for the plaintiff argued that, the plaintiff along with the defendants no.1 to 8 purchased the suit schedule property under two registered sale deeds marked as Exs.A1 and A2 as such he is the co-sharer of the schedule properties therein. After purchase, the sale deeds were implemented in revenue records and the name of the plaintiff recorded as pattadar and possessor in respect of the suit schedule properties. When the plaintiff demanded for partition by metes and bounds, the defendants refused for amicable partition as such he filed the present suit. Further he argued that, the plaintiff is husband of defendant no.7 and father of defendant no.8 to 11. That, the plaintiff turned old, the defendant’s no.7 to 11 are neglecting the plaintiff and also not giving him any share in the suit schedule properties in collusion with other defendants. The plaintiff left the village due to harassment of the defendant no.7 but at the stage of old age, the plaintiff is in need of support from the family members or atleast share in the properties so that he can maintain himself without depending on others and family members.
Dt.30-09-2024
Original Suit No.124/2012 Page 12 of 22
15. The counsel for the defendants no.9 to 11 submitted his oral arguments stating that, these defendants purchased the land from their mother/defendant no.7, when she required money for performing the marriage of her youngest daughter namely Ranamma. Being the daughters of defendant no.7, purchased land from her to cooperate for the marriage of their younger sister by giving valuable sale consideration to the defendant no.7. Prior to that, the defendant no.7 was a co- owner of the property purchased by plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 8 under registered sale deeds in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. The defendant no.7 got the absolute right, title and possession over the lands sold to the defendant no.9 to 11. That, the defendant no.7 got divided her share from the joint ownership among the plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 8 and she perfected her title and possession during the subsequent years by obtaining pattadar passbook from the revenue authorities.
The property sold to the defendant no.9 to 11 is the absolute property of the defendant no.7 as such it cannot be questioned by the plaintiff. He further argued that, the plaintiff in collusion with the defendant no.8 causing interference and disturbance to the peaceful possession of the defendant’s no.9 to 11. That, the plaintiff filed present suit at the instance of defendant no.8 to usurp the property purchased by the defendant no.9 to 11. That, the defendants no.9 to 11 have purchased the property in the year 2008 itself which is in the knowledge of plaintiff and defendant no.8 and the purpose of purchase was to perform the marriage of younger daughter of defendant no.7. He further argued that, the plaintiff filed the suit by misrepresentation of facts and in collusion with the defendant no.8 who intends to usurp the property purchased by the defendant no.9 to 11. There are so many legal infirmities which are detrimental to the claim of the plaintiff as such the suit is liable to be dismissed.
Dt.30-09-2024
Original Suit No.124/2012 Page 13 of 22
16. ISSUE NO.1:-
“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition of the suit
schedule property as prayed for”?
The present suit is filed by the plaintiff against his wife, son, daughters, and brother in law, brother in law’s wife and their children for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. That, the plaintiff and defendant belong to Chityala village. The plaintiff and defendant no.7 are the husband and wife. The defendant’s no.8 to 11 are their children. The defendant no.1 and 2 are husband and wife, the defendants no.3 to 6 are their children. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship among the parties.
17. On perusal of the material on record, it looks like there is a dispute between the male and female members of the family of the plaintiff. The plaintiff/father and defendant no.8/son on one side, the defendant no.7/mother and 9 to 11/daughters are on the other side. The defendant’s no.7 and 9 to 11 being the wife and daughters of plaintiff allege that, the plaintiff did not look after the family matters and lived his life by neglecting his responsibility towards his wife and daughters. That, apart from defendant no.9 to 11, there is youngest daughter to the plaintiff and her marriage was not performed by the plaintiff. The mother/defendant no.7 performed the marriage of her youngest daughter with the funds raised by her by selling her share to the defendant no.9 to 11. The plaintiff and defendant no.8 did not give any reply to the above allegations of the defendant no.7 and 9 to 11.
18. Keeping it as it may, the plaintiff asserted that, he is the co-sharer and co- purchaser along with the defendant no.1 to 8, the property purchased by them was jointly recorded in the mutation proceedings by the concerned revenue authorities and that the suit schedule properties are still in joint possession of the parties to the suit without any partition by metes and bounds. That, he has not been allotted the
Dt.30-09-2024
Original Suit No.124/2012 Page 14 of 22 share in the properties purchased under Ex.A1 and A2. That, the plaintiff is entitled for 1/9th share in the suit schedule property on par with the defendant no.1 to 8 by metes and bounds. The first and foremost thing to be established by the plaintiff is that, he is in joint and constructive possession over the suit schedule property. It is an admitted fact that, the defendant no.1 and 2 are the parents of defendant no.3 to 6. The defendant no.1 is the brother of the defendant no.7. As per the material on record, only three documents are marked on behalf of the plaintiff. The registered sale deeds under which the suit schedule properties are purchased are marked as
Exs.A1 and A2 and the third document is the pahani record for the year 1988-89 issued by the Dy.Tahsildar. The entries under Ex.A3 reveal that, all the names of purchasers in Exs.A1 and A2 i.e., defendant no.1 to 8 and plaintiff are recorded as pattadars and possessors in respect of Ac.01.21gts in sy.no.255/A, Ac.01.21gts in sy.no.255/AA, Ac.00.34gts in sy.no.257/A, Ac.00.34gts in sy.no.257/AA,
Ac.04.24gts in sy.no.261/A, Ac.01.02gts in sy.no.253/A, Ac.01.02gts in sy.no.253/AA, Ac.00.36gts in sy.no.254/A, Ac.03.17gts in sy.no.240, Ac.00.14gts in sy.no.245/A, Ac.00.14gts in sy.no.245/AA, Ac.00.07gts in sy.no.246/A, Ac.00.08gts in sy.no.246/AA. But there is no separate and individual extents against each name of the purchaser to show that, the separate and individual extents are implemented in revenue records. As per the entries in revenue records, it should be constitute that, the suit schedule property is in joint and constructive possession of all the purchasers under Exs.A1 and A2.
19. The documents filed by the plaintiff under Exs.A1 and A2 clearly show that, the total suit schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff and defendant no.1 to 8 and Ex.A3 reveals that, all the names of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 to 8 are implemented in revenue records on the basis of Exs.A1 and A2. The plaintiff stated
Dt.30-09-2024
Original Suit No.124/2012 Page 15 of 22 that, so far there is no partition of the said properties. In support of the assertion of the plaintiff that, the plaint schedule property is not yet partitioned, the DW1 categorically admitted in her cross examination that, they purchased the suit schedule property about 40 years back through two registered sale deeds dated 28-04-1983 and that out of Ac.19.00gts of land purchased by them, the plaintiff and defendant no.1 to 8 got 1/9th share each. Further, the DW1 being the wife of plaintiff clearly admitted in the cross examination that, the suit schedule property purchased under Exs.A1 and A2 is not yet partitioned. When the defendant no.7/DW1 who contested the case admits that, the suit schedule property is not yet partitioned no more evidence is required to prove that, the plaintiff is in joint possession of the suit schedule property along with defendant’s no.1 to 8. Hence, this Court holds that the plaintiff is in joint possession over the suit schedule property along with defendant’s no.1 to 8. The plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 8 acquired the suit schedule properties by way of purchase through registered sale deeds, as such they become co-owners and co-sharers. Each sharer is entitled for his share in the schedule property purchased under the sale deeds.
20. On the other side, the defendant no.7 got marked only one document i.e.,
Ex.B1 which is the pahani record consisting of 19 pages relating to the entries of the pattadars and possessors. The defendants no.9 to 11 demonstrated that, they purchased the part of the suit schedule properties by way of registered sale deeds vide documents no.1084/2008, 1085/2008, 1086/2008. The defendant no.7 is none other than the wife of plaintiff and the defendant no.9 to 11 are the daughters of the plaintiff. Further, the entries in Ex.B1 reveal that, separate and individual extents are mentioned against the names of defendant’s no.1 to 6 and 8 to 11 in respect of each survey number of the suit schedule property. The Ex.B1 pertains to the year
Dt.30-09-2024
Original Suit No.124/2012 Page 16 of 22 2009-10. As per the available material on record, this Court noticed that, the suit schedule properties are commonly recorded on the names of plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 8 in Ex.A3 whereas in Ex.B1 individual and separate extents are recorded on the names of defendant no.1 to 6 and 8 to 11. In these circumstances, the assertion of the plaintiff that, the suit schedule properties are transferred on the name of defendant no.7 behind his back by managing the revenue authorities gains strength.
There are no bonafide reasons for the change of entries from Ex.A3 to Ex.B1.
21. The entries made by the revenue authorities in Ex.B1 reveal that, the plaintiff’s name is nowhere entered in respect of his share. The defendants failed to file any other document on what basis the revenue entries reflecting in Ex.B1 are made. Admittedly, the defendants or the plaintiff filed any suit for partition prior to the institution of present suit. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that, the parties have divided the shares by way of registered partition deed. Therefore, there is no evidence to hold that, the parties have divided the suit schedule property among themselves by any mode of recognized partition. As such, the revenue entries under Ex.B1 are baseless. The revenue entries under Ex.B1 cannot create any right and title in favour of the persons on whose name such entries are made.
22. However, the significant contention of the defendant no.9 to 11 is that, they purchased the property under registered sale deeds from the defendant no.7 in the year 2008. From the date of purchase they have been in possession and enjoyment by virtue of the entries incorporated in revenue records on the basis of sale deeds.
The vendor of defendant’s no.9 to 11 is none other than the defendant no.7. As stated supra, the defendant no.7 is one of the sharer among the plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 8 in the properties acquired by them under Ex.A1 and A2. The defendant no.7 gets equal share of 1/9th share along with plaintiff and defendants
Dt.30-09-2024
Original Suit No.124/2012 Page 17 of 22 no.1 to 6 and 8. The defendant no.7 cannot alienate or otherwise deal with joint property of the co-sharers more than the extent she is entitled. The defendant’s no.9 to 11 contended that, they each purchased an extent of Ac.01.00gts and odd from the defendant no.7. According to Exs.A1 and A2, the total property purchased by the plaintiff and defendants is Ac.19.09gts, the total purchasers are 9 in number and each of one them is entitled for 1/9th share, when the shares are so divided, each sharer will get an extent of Ac.02.05gts each but the defendants no.9 to 11 contended that, each of one them purchased Ac.01.00gts and odd from the defendant no.7, therefore it is open to the naked eye that the defendant no.7 has sold away more extent of land than what she is actually entitled being co-sharer.
23. The defendant’s no.9 to 11 do not agree with the assertion of the plaintiff that, he is entitled for his 1/9th share in the suit schedule properties. They contend that, the defendant no.7 is the absolute owner of the property purchased by them and through the defendant no.7 they became absolute owners and possessors of the part of the suit schedule property purchased by them under the registered sale deeds. To support their version, they have got marked Ex.B2 to Ex.B10. Ex.B2 to
B10 reflect that, the defendant no.9 to 11 filed separate suits vide OS.Nos.188/2018, 189/2018, and 190/2018 which are pending on the file of this Court. The certified copies of the plaint, written statement, chief and cross examination of PW1, and digital pattadar passbooks of defendant no.9 to 11/plaintiffs in the above said suits were marked. The digital pattadar passbooks of the defendant no.9 to 11 shows that, they are the owners and possessors of Ac.01.02 ½ gts each in suit survey numbers herein. The certified copies filed by the defendant’s no.9 to 11, show that, the defendant’s no.9 to 11 purchased the property by virtue of registered sale deeds
Dt.30-09-2024
Original Suit No.124/2012 Page 18 of 22 bearing document nos.1084/2008, 1085/2008, 1086/2005 respectively from the defendant no.7.
24. The defendant no.9 to 11 vehemently contended that, the property was purchased by them from the defendant no.7 in the year 2008 for the purpose of performing marriage of youngest daughter of defendant no.7. They argued that, the plaintiff did not perform the marriage of fourth daughter so the defendant no.7 shouldered the pain to raise money for the expenses of the marriage and they contributed by way of purchasing the some suit schedule property which is already recorded on the name of defendant no.7 as absolute owner and possessor. The stand taken by the defendant’s no.9 to 11 is not tenable since the plaintiff is one of the sharer of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff cannot be denied his share in the suit schedule properties as he was one of the purchaser of the suit schedule properties under Exs.A1 and A2. The defendant’s no.9 to 11 failed to bring on record the relevant material to ascertain the manner of the acquisition of property by the defendant no.7 who is their vendor. The fact remains not proved that how a defendant no.7 could transfer the part of the suit schedule property to the defendant’s no.9 to 11 under registered sale deeds without having title and ownership. The suit schedule properties are not at all partitioned so far by metes and bounds and if at all any part of the undivided share is sold away by a co-sharer, it shall be subject to the conclusive determination of the rights of each sharer over the extent of his share by metes and bounds. In the present case, the defendants failed to discharge their liability to prove that, the defendant no.7 became the absolute owner of the part of the suit schedule property which has been sold to the defendant’s no.9 to 11. The defendants also failed to establish that the plaintiff's share was given to the defendant no.7. There is no record that, the suit schedule
Dt.30-09-2024
Original Suit No.124/2012 Page 19 of 22 properties was divided among the co-sharers by way of recognized modes of partition. The defendant’s no.9 to 11 failed to bring on record under which mode the defendant no.7 became the owner of part of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the allegation of the defendant’s no.9 to 11 is contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice.
25. The registered sale deeds executed by the defendant no.7 in favour of the defendant’s no.9 to 11 are against the law since the vendor herself do not have valid title over the said properties. The share of the defendant no.7 who executed the registered sale deeds in favour of the defendant’s no.9 to 11 is not fixed and she did not get any definite extent out of the entire suit schedule property. As already noted above, unless there have been final fixation of the allotment of shares, the transfers made by any co-sharer shall be subject to the final allotment. At this juncture, this
Court holds that the registered sale deeds executed by defendant no.7 in favour of the defendant’s no.9 to 11 are void and not binding on the plaintiff.
26. In the present case, the plaintiff did not seek for any relief against the registered sale deeds executed by the defendant no.7 in favour of the defendant no.9 to 11. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued on this point that, though there is no prayer in the plaint for declaration of the registered sale deeds in respect of part of the suit schedule property executed by defendant no.7 in favour of defendants no.9 to 11 as null and void, it will not affect the case of the plaintiff and that it is always not necessary for the plaintiff to seek such a declaration. On this aspect, the learned counsel for the plaintiff placed his reliance on the Judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court between Mrs.Umadevi Nambair v. Thamarasseri Roman
Catholic Diocese Rep.By Its Procurator Devssia’s Son Rev. Father Joseph
Kappil in AIR Online 2022 SC 438, wherein it was held at para no.15 that,
Dt.30-09-2024
Original Suit No.124/2012 Page 20 of 22
15. It is not always necessary for a plaintiff in a suit for partition to seek the cancellation of the alienations. There are several reasons behind this principle. One is that the alienees as well as the co sharer are still entitled to sustain the alienation to the extent of the share of the cosharer. It may also be open to the alienee, in the final decree proceedings, to seek the allotment of the transferred property, to the share of the transferor, so that equities are worked out in a fair manner. Therefore, the High Court was wrong in putting against the appellant, her failure to challenge the alienations.
27. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is suitable to the present set off facts to the extent of alienations. The Hon’ble Apex Court interpreted that, it is not always necessary for a plaintiff in a suit for partition to seek the cancellation of the alienations. There are several reasons behind this principle. One is that the alienees as well as the co sharer are still entitled to sustain the alienation to the extent of the share of the cosharer . In the case on hand, the plaintiff is found to be entitled for the 1/9th share along with defendant’s no.1 to 9 as a co-purchaser. It is proved that, the defendant no.7 executed sale deeds in favour of her daughters/defendants no.9 to 11 for more extent of land than what she is actually entitled. The ruling mentioned above says that, the co-sharers are entitled to sustain the alienations to the extent of the share of the co-sharer. The defendant no.7 can sustain the alienation to the extent of her share only. The remaining extent sold by the defendant no.7 shall be subject to the final allotment of shares among all the co-sharers. In view of the judgment supplied by the counsel for the plaintiff, the present suit is maintainable even though the plaintiff did not seek any relief against the registered sale deeds bearing document nos.1084/2008, 1085/2008, and 1086/2005. Accordingly, the issue no.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.
Dt.30-09-2024
Original Suit No.124/2012 Page 21 of 22
28. ISSUE NO.2:- “To what relief”
In view of the findings in issue no.1, the suit is liable to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled for a preliminary decree of partition that, plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 8 are entitled for 1/9th share each in the suit schedule property.
29. IN THE RESULT, the suit is preliminarily decreed by declaring that the plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 8 are entitled for partition of 1/9th share each in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. In view of relationship among the parties and nature of the dispute, the parties shall bear their own costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed by him corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 30 th day of September, 2024).
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RAMANNAPET
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF: - FOR DEFENDANTS:- PW1- Peddaboina Buchaiah. DW1- Peddaboina Sathamma. PW3- Gattu Narsimha. DW2- Boddu Sujatha, DW3- Jakkula Nirmala. DW4- Sulochana.
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PLAINTIFF:- Ex.A1 is the certified copy of register sale deed bearing document no.462/1983 executed by his vendor in favour of PW1 and in favour of defendants dated 28-04- 1983. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of register sale deed bearing document no.468/1983 executed by his vendor in favour of PW1 and in favour of defendants dated 28-04- 1983 Ex.A3 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1988-89 consisting of Ac.19.09gts out of sy.nos.240, 245, 246, 252, 253, 254, 255, 257 and 261 shows that, PW1 and defendants are joint pattadars and possessors of the suit schedule property. FOR DEFENDANTS:- Ex.B1 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-10 issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Ramannapet (19 pages in number). Ex.B2 is the certified copy of plaint in OS.No.188/2018 on the file of the PJCJ, Ramannapet. Ex.B3 is the certified copy of digital pattadar pass book of D2.
Dt.30-09-2024
Original Suit No.124/2012 Page 22 of 22
Ex.B4 is the certified copy of chief affidavit and cross examination of PW1 in
OS.No.188/2018.
Ex.B5 is the certified copy of plaint in OS.No.189/2018 on the file of the PJCJ, Ramannapet. Ex.B6 is the certified copy of digital pattadar pass book of D2. Ex.B7 is the certified copy of chief affidavit and cross examination of PW1 in
OS.No.189/2018.
Ex.B8 is the certified copy of plaint in OS.No.190/2018 on the file of the PJCJ, Ramannapet. Ex.B9 is the certified copy of digital pattadar pass book of D2. Ex.B10 is the certified copy of chief affidavit and cross examination of PW1 in
OS.No.190/2018.
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RAMANNAPET
Dt.30-09-2024