1
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) : : GUDUR,
SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
Monday, this the 1st day of December, 2025.
Present : Smt. B.Gayathri,
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Atmakur,
(FAC) Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gudur.
OS No.104 / 2017
1.Sd.Dilshad Begum, wife of late Allavuddin, Muslim, aged about 57 years, house wife, resident of No 34, Second Mantry Street, T. Nagar, Chennai city, Tamil Nadu State.
2. Sd.Munthaj Begum, wife of late Nawab John, Muslim, aged about 56 years, house wife, resident of Narlapalli Village of V Kota Mandal, Chittore District.
3. Sd.Majam Begum @ Majahan Begum, wife of Sardhar, Muslim, aged about 55 years, house wife, No.556, Vijayapura, Devanahalli Taluq, Bangalore dt, Karnataka State.
4. Sd.Gousunnisa, wife of Yasin, Muslim, house wife, aged about 54 years, house wife, resident of D.No 3/456, Beedi Colony, Naidupeta town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
5. Sd.Shameem, wife of Shajahan, Muslim, aged about 53 years, house wife, D.No 2/26, Bandeladoddi Street, Venkatagiri town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. … Plaintiffs
Vs.
1. Sd.Abdul Subhan, son of Gouse Mohiddin, Muslim, aged about 51 years, business, resident of Chendodu village, Kota Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
2. Sd.Meeramohiddin, son of Gouse Mohiddin, Muslim, aged about 45 years, resident of Chendodu Village, Kota Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
2
3. Sk.Gayazuddin, son of Mohiddin, Muslim, aged about 50 years, business, resident of Vidyanagar Village, Kota Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
4. Gadamsetty Balasubramanyam, son of Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 37 years, business, resident of Krishna Sai Nagar, Chedodu Village, Kota Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
5. Vallamkonda Gopalakrishnamoorthy, son of Venkatasubbaiah, Hindu, aged about 49 years, business, resident of D.No 4/49, Satrapu Street, East Gudur town, SPSR Nellore District.
6. Sd.Thajul, wife of Sd. Meera Mohiddin, Muslim, aged about 39 years, House wife, R/o.Vidyanagar Village of Kota Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. (6th defendant is added as per orders in IA No.628/2017 dated 28.01.2019) … Defendants
This suit is coming on 25.11.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Gangi Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri V.Upendra Rao, Advocate for the defendants, upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence and hearing of the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following : -
J U D G M E N T
This suit is filed for partition for suit schedule properties into 9 equal shares and to allot 5/9th share to the plaintiffs i.e., 1/9th share to each plaintiff and for costs of the suit.
2.The averments of plaint in brief are as follows:
a)The suit schedule properties are situated at Chendodu village and Kummaragunta village, Kota,Venkatagri mandal respectively.
3
Originally the suit schedule properties belongs to Syed Ghouse Mohiddin who is the father of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 & 2. He was the Ex- service man retired from the service. At the time of his retirement D-Form military pattas was granted in favour of Ghouse Mohiddin. During the life time of the said Mohiddin he was enjoying the said property and died intestate on 28.04.2008 due to ill-health leaving behind his widow wife by name Amirunnisa Begum and his children i.e., plaintiffs and defendants
No.1 & 2 as legal representatives. The said Mohiddin having another son by name Hayath Sharif he predeceased his father. So after the death of his son his wife, children are not entitled for the share of Ghouse Mohiddin as per Muslim personal law as he predeceased his father. As such they are not added as parties to the suit. The wife of the Ghouse Mohiddin, plaintiff and defendants No.1 & 2 succeeded the plaint schedule properties and they are joint possession of the suit properties.
b)The parties are governed as per Hanifi law of inheritance as per the Hanifi law the widow by name Amirunnisa Begum is entitled of 1/8th share as a sharer and the plaintiffs being daughters of Ghouse
Mohiddin they are entitled to get 7/72 shares each therefore the plaintiffs are entitled to a share of 35/360 over the suit schedule property and the defendants No.1 & 2 being sons are entitled to the share of 14/144 each.
After the death of the Ghouse Mohiddin the widow wife Amirunnisa Begum 4 knowingly that she has definite share of 1/8th over the suit schedule property suppressed the said fact and without consent of the other sharers executed a Sham and nominal settlement deeds dt 22.12.2008 and 18.12.2008 in respect of items No.1 & 2 of the suit properties in favour of the 2nd defendant. But, the mother of the plaintiff has no right to execute the settlement deed and it is not binding on the plaintiffs as well as 1st defendant.
c)The plaintiff further submits that the mother of the plaintiff and defendants died on 16.06.2009 leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants
No.1 & 2 therefore after the death of the mother her 1/8th share is also devolved upon the plaintiffs defendants No.1 & 2. Therefore the plaintiffs and the defendants No.1 & 2 are entitled to partition the entire plaint schedule property. Basing on the settlement deeds without partition the property the defendant No.2 sold away item No.1 of plaint schedule property to defendant No.3 which is a part and parcel covered under registered gift deed dated 22.12.2008 on 09.02.2012. The defendant No.3 in turn sold item No.1 to 4th defendant under registered sale deed dated 5.11.2014 and delivered the possession over the same. The 2nd defendant basing on the another settlement deed dated 18.12.2003 executed by his mother sold away the item No.2 in favour of 5th defendant under a registered sale deed dated 16.11.2015 and delivered the possession.
5
d)The plaintiff further submits the defendant No.2 sold away items No.1 & 2 to the defendants No.3 to 5 by the way of different sale deeds which are not binding on the plaintiffs. Further, they submits that the defendant No.2 sold away the property without the knowledge of the other cosharers by depriving the legitimate share of plaintiffs No.1 to 5 and 1st defendant. After knowing the alienations made by the 2nd defendant in favour of Defendant No.3 to 5 the plaintiffs decided that it is not safe to continue the joint possession and hence he filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their respective shares.
3.The averments of written statement of 2 nd defendant in
Brief :
The defendant No.2 admitted the relationship between the parties and also there is no dispute about the employment of the father of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 and about the death of the parents of them. He further submits that during the life time of father of the plaintiffs performed their marriages by giving amounts to them as per their respective shares. After the death of the father the 1st defendant never looked after the mother Amirunnisa begum and failed to provide basic necessities so this defendant looked after the welfare of his mother during her last stage. So during the life time of mother she executed registered settlement deeds in his favour in respect of the suit properties as such the 6 plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are not entitled to any share. He further submits that the defendant No.1 and plaintiffs are never in joint possession and the plaintiffs and 1st defendant are not entitled as claimed in the plaint.
As per the Muslim law the plaintiffs and 1st defendant are not entitled any share as the mother of the plaintiffs voluntarily settled in favour of this defendant. Further he submits that item No.1 is not possession and enjoyment of this defendant. The plaintiffs and 1st defendant are having knowledge about the execution of registered sale deeds executed in favour of 3rd defendant. This 2nd defendant filed OS No.167/2016 in respect of item
No.2 of plaint schedule properties against the 1st defendant. The registered settlement deeds executed in the year 2008 as such the suit is barred by limitation there is no cause of action hence prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
4.The 3 rd defendant filed the written statement and adoption memo filed by the 5 th defendant with the following averments:
They denied all the allegations mentioned in the plaint but specifically admitted that the suit schedule property belonging to the Syed
Ghouse Mohiddin and the plaintiffs are his children. After the death of
Ghouse Mohiddin, his wife Amirunnisa succeeded the entire assets of her husband with all testamentary rights having capacity to transfer. As such out of love and affection on 22.12.2008 she settled the property with 2nd 7 defendant vide document No.2465/2008 ever since then the 2nd defendant was absolute owner of item No.1 of the suit property. Hence, he sold away the same to this defendant vide register sale deed dt 09.02.2012 vide document No.214/2012. Therefore he is a bonafide purchaser later he sold away the same to 5th defendant on 05.11.2014 for valuable consideration as such 5th defendant is also bonafide purchaser. Further, they submits that item No.2 was sold to 4th defendant and delivered the possession to him and the 5th defendant as nothing to do and he is not a purchaser in respect of item No.2 of suit property. Amirunnisa begam has got better title and hence she settled items No.1 & 2 in favour of 2nd defendant. They admitted that the suit property is a Government land granted by the Government to late Ghouse Mohiddin under D-Form patta. Therefore the suit for partition is not maintainable and the plaintiffs are not entitled for partition and this suit is liable to be dismissed.
5.The averments of the written statement of 4 th defendant, in brief are as follows :
He denied all the allegations mentioned in the plaint and specifically admitted that originally the suit property belongs to the late SD.Ghouse
Mohiddin who was Ex-service man and after his retirement the
Government granted D-Form patta in respect of suit property. The originally pattas are misplaced and hence certified copies are filed. He is also 8 admitted that Ghouse Mohiddin during his life time enjoyed the property and died intestate on 28.04.2008 leaving behind his wife Amirunnisa begum and plaintiffs and defendants No.1 & 2 as legal heirs who succeeded the property. He further denies that all the children are in joint possession and Amirunnisa begum entitled to 1/8th share over the suit property as a sharer and the plaintiffs are entitled to 7/72 shares each and defendants No.1 & 2 are entitled to 14/144 share each. He further submits that the registered settlement deeds dt 22.12.2008 and 18.12.2008 are settled by the Amirunnisa as she acquires absolute rights. In addition to the averments of the above defendants he stated that the Ghouse Mohiddin orally gifted the suit properties as Hiba under Mohammaden law in favour of his wife. After the death of her husband the defendant No.2 looked after the welfare of their mother and hence she settled items No.1 & 2 in favour of 2nd defendant and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. After the death of Amirunnisa on 16.06.2009 the 2nd defendant sold the property to this defendant for valuable consideration and deliver the possession and he has been enjoyment and also mutated his name in respect of Room No.4 of item No.2 by paying taxes and running medical shops with name and style of Bhargavi Medicals and Fancy by obtaining license from Grama panchayat. He further submits the defendant No.2 in order to knock away the same colluded with the plaintiffs and trying to 9 interfere with the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs and defendants
No.1 & 2 have no manner of right, title and possession over the property.
The present suit is filed for wrongful gain.
6.The averments of the written statement of 6 th defendant, in brief are as follows :
He denied all the allegations mentioned in the plaint. He specifically admitted the relationship between the parties. He was added during the pendency of the suit vide IA No.628/2018 and the 2nd defendant executed registered settlement deed on 10.03.2016 in favour of this defendant. This defendant alienated item No.3 to one Thimmasetty Venkataramanaiah in the year 2017 which is a valid document. The plaintiffs have no share in the item No.3 of the suit property and the purchaser is necessary and proper party and hence the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
7.Basing on the pleadings of both the parties the following issues are settled for trial :
1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for 5/9 th share in the
items No.1 o 3 of plaint schedule property ?
2) Whether the item No.3 of the plaint schedule property is exclusive property of 2 nd defendant ?
3) To What relief ?
10
8.To prove the case of the plaintiffs the 1st plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. To prove the case of the defendants the 2nd defendant examined as DW1, the defendant No.3 was examined as DW.2. Defendant No.4 was examined as DW.3. As seen from the affidavits filed by the defendants only defendants No.2 to 4 filed chief affidavits and examined as D.W.s1 to 3 as per the docket order dated 04-01-2023 but on the chief affidavits and in the deposition it is wrongly mentioned as D.W.s2 to 4 but D.W.4 not examined. Hence recorded and hence the judgment is dictated.
9.Heard both the sides, Perused the record. The written agruments filed the learned counsel for the defendant No.4 and other defendants orally argued that the matter may be decided on merits. The 4th defendant filed written arguments that “The 4th defendant, in his written arguments, contended that the plaint schedule properties originally belonged to late Ghouse Mohiddin and that he had orally gifted the same in favour of his wife Ameerunissa Begum by way of Hiba. It is argued that
Ameerunissa Begum became the absolute owner and thereafter executed a registered settlement deed in favour of the 2nd defendant, who subsequently sold Item No.2, Room No.4, to the 4th defendant for valid consideration. It is further contended that the 4th defendant is a bona fide purchaser, is in exclusive possession, and that the plaintiffs were never in 11 joint possession and hence are not entitled to seek partition.” Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
10.The 1st plaintiff entered the witness box as PW.1 she filed her chief affidavit and it is nothing but replica of plaint. She narrated in a clear and consistent manner that late Gouse Mohiddin was her father and that he served in the Indian Army. After his retirement, the Government granted certain extents of land and a house site by way of D-Form Military Patta exclusively in his name. She stated that her father alone was the absolute owner of all the suit schedule properties and he remained in possession thereof until his death on 28-04-2008. She further stated that after the death of her father, his estate devolved upon his widow, five daughters and two sons, together with the legal heirs of one pre-deceased son, according to the rules of Sunni Hanafi Law. She explained that her mother, being the widow, was entitled only to a fractional 1/8th share whereas the remaining 7/8th devolved upon the children in the ratio of two shares for each son and one share for each daughter. She categorically stated that the plaintiffs, along with defendants 1 and 2 and the legal heirs of their deceased brother, were all co-sharers and tenants-in-common and that none of them relinquished or surrendered their shares either during the lifetime of their father or after his demise.
12
11.In the same breath she narrated that her mother, who had only a limited fractional interest, executed two registered settlement deeds in favour of the 2nd defendant: one on 18-12-2008 relating to a portion of the property, and another on 22-12-2008 relating to another portion. She emphasized that her mother had no authority to convey the entire property because she herself was only entitled to a small share, and therefore the entire recitals in the two settlement deeds that she was the absolute owner were false, self-serving and planted at the instance of the 2nd defendant who was exerting influence upon her. She explained further that taking advantage of these settlement deeds, the 2nd defendant went on alienating different parts of the property to defendants 3, 4 and 5 and had also executed a settlement deed in favour of his own wife (D6) purporting to deal with Item No. 3 as if he were the owner of the entire estate. She stated that all these alienations and settlements are wholly void, illegal and not binding on the shares of the plaintiffs.
12.She narrated that repeated demands were made for effecting an amicable partition but the defendants did not agree, and the 2nd defendant continued making further alienation. She stated that all purchasers, including defendants 3 to 6, cannot claim to be bona fide purchasers because the title to the property stood clearly in the name of her father and not in the name of her mother or the 2nd defendant. She 13 stated that the plaintiffs have not at any point relinquished, released or forfeited their shares. She reiterated that the plaintiffs are entitled together to a 5/9th share in all items of the suit schedule property.
13.During the cross-examination of PW1 proceeded at length.
She admitted that her father was indeed a recipient of military patta but firmly denied that he ever made any oral gift of the suit properties to her mother. Whenever she was confronted with suggestions that an oral gift had taken place, she steadfastly denied them and asserted that no such gift had occurred at any time, that no ceremony was held, no relatives were invited, no declaration was made, no acceptance was recorded and no delivery of possession had ever happened. She also stated that her father remained in possession till his death and continued to reside in the same house. When confronted with the settlement deeds executed by her mother, she accepted that her mother executed them but repeatedly insisted that the execution of a document does not create authority where none exists, and that since the mother had only a meager share she could not have conveyed the entire estate.
14.She denied the suggestion that the plaintiffs received any share in the property at the time of their marriages. She asserted that whatever was given at the time of the marriages was only customary gifts and not property forming part of the inheritance. She denied the allegation 14 that the plaintiffs neglected their mother. She stated that the plaintiffs were living separately after marriage and only the 2nd defendant’s proximity to their mother was the reason she lived in his house, not because the plaintiffs abandoned her. She also stated that the 2nd defendant misused his proximity to obtain the settlement deeds. She denied that her mother was the absolute owner. She denied knowledge of any mutation entries in favour of the 2nd defendant and asserted that even if such entries existed they do not confer title under law. She made it clear that the plaintiffs never executed any release deeds nor consented to any transfer.
20.She denied the suggestion that the purchasers, defendants 3 to 5, made any proper enquiry because no one approached the plaintiffs or the 1st defendant to ascertain their shares. She stated that neither the plaintiffs nor the legal heirs of the pre-deceased brother had given any consent for any sale or settlement. She firmly stated that the 2nd defendant had no right to alienate the property and therefore all subsequent purchasers obtained nothing and their documents cannot bind the plaintiffs’ shares.
21.The 2nd defendant, Syed Meera Mohiddin, was examined as
DW1. In his chief-examination he claimed that the plaintiffs had no right, title or interest in the suit schedule property because their father had orally gifted the entire property to their mother during his lifetime. He stated that 15 after the marriages of the five daughters, only the sons remained with their parents and that he alone took care of the mother. He asserted that his father had orally gifted the entire estate to his mother and that she had become the full and absolute owner. He stated that she had executed two settlement deeds in his favour in December 2008, a few months after the father’s death, because she loved him and recognized his service. He further asserted that after obtaining title under the settlement deeds, he constructed rooms, carried out improvements, and took complete possession of the property. He also narrated that he sold portions of the property to defendants 3, 4 and 5 and had settled Item No. 3 in favour of his wife, defendant 6, out of love and affection. He asserted that all these transactions were valid and binding. He further claimed that the suit was engineered at the instance of the 1st defendant who had instigated the plaintiffs.
22.The cross-examination of DW1, which is already rewritten earlier, is now seamlessly integrated into this narrative. During his cross- examination DW1 admitted that the entire property originally belonged to his father and that all records stood exclusively in his father's name. He was unable to state the date, time, place or details of the alleged oral gift and could not name a single person who witnessed such a gift. He admitted that after the so-called oral gift, his father continued to live in the 16 property and the patta remained unchanged. He admitted that the recitals of oral gift in the settlement deeds were inserted only at his instance and that no independent proof existed of his mother ever becoming the absolute owner. He conceded that his mother was old, illiterate and dependent on him at the time when the settlement deeds were executed.
He could not deny that his mother had only a 1/8th share under
Mohammedan Law and that the daughters were entitled to inherit along with the sons. He admitted that the plaintiffs did not sign any release deed and had never relinquished their rights. He admitted that he never disclosed the existence of plaintiffs’ shares to the purchasers. He admitted that defendants 3, 4 and 5 did not verify the legal heirship and did not enquire into the rights of the daughters. He further admitted that no document existed to prove that he had made improvements as he alleged, and that all documents produced by him were post-settlement-deed documents.
23.DW2, the third defendant, deposed that he purchased a portion of the property from the 2nd defendant after inspecting the property and verifying the settlement deeds executed by the mother. He stated that he bona fide believed that the 2nd defendant had full title. However, in cross-examination he admitted that he did not verify whether the mother had exclusive title or whether the plaintiffs had any share. He admitted that 17 he did not obtain legal heir certificate, did not make local enquiries with neighbours or relatives, and did not take any precaution to ascertain whether other heirs existed. He candidly stated that he relied only upon the representations of the 2nd defendant and did not undertake any independent verification of the title of the transferor.
24.DW3, the fourth defendant, stated that he purchased a shop room from the 2nd defendant and that he had invested money to establish a medical shop. He asserted that he was in possession. However, in cross- examination he admitted that the original owner was the father of the plaintiffs, that he never enquired into the rights of the daughters, that he never issued a paper notice calling for objections, and that he too relied solely upon the version given by the 2nd defendant. He admitted that the sale deed executed in his favour did not contain any recital about the shares of other heirs nor mention that all legal heirs consented.
25.The documentary evidence placed before the Court commences with Ex.A1 is the family member certificate, which only shows the relationship between the parties and does not confer the title over the suit property.
26.Ex.A2, is the House tax demand register extract pertaining to the suit lands I.e item No.2 further reinforces the plaintiffs’ case. These extracts continue to reflect the name of late Gouse Mohiddin as the 18 pattadar and possessor item NO.2, without any reference to his wife acquiring the property by gift or otherwise. The absence of any mutation in favour of the mother is telling because, in matters of oral gift, the donee or her guardian ordinarily takes steps to reflect her ownership in public records. The total silence of the revenue records, even after the death of the father, strongly negates the claim of the 2nd defendant that an oral gift had been made many years prior. Rather, the revenue entries present a continuous chain of title showing the father’s ownership and thereafter the constructive joint possession of all heirs. This fact assumes significance as it indicates that even in the municipal records that the property was not treated as Ameerunissa Begum and continued the existence of the father's name.
27.The next important document is Ex.A3, the settlement deed
dated 18-12-2008 executed by the mother in favour of the 2nd defendant. A
careful perusal of this document reveals that the recitals proclaim the mother to be the “absolute owner” of the schedule property, allegedly on account of an oral gift made by her deceased husband. However, the recital is purely self-serving and is not supported by any prior document, entry or independent evidence. The document begins by asserting her absolute title but offers no foundation for such title. The Court finds, upon scrutiny, that the recital bears clear signs of being drafted at the direction of 19 the 2nd defendant. This conclusion gains strength from the admissions elicited in his cross-examination, wherein he stated that the recital was included because he instructed the scribe to incorporate it. The document contains no reference to the shares of other heirs, nor does it mention the names of the plaintiffs, who, under Muslim law, are co-heirs. The silence of the deed regarding the daughters’ rights is a suspicious circumstance that weakens its probative value. Moreover, the mother, being an illiterate lady, did not append any signature personally but only affixed her thumb impression on a document prepared by the son who now claims the benefit.
28.Ex.A4, the second settlement deed executed on 22-12-2008, suffers from the same infirmities. It too recites that the mother was the absolute owner by virtue of an oral gift, yet no independent proof of such gift is furnished. The timing of these deeds both executed within a span of four days, several months after the father’s death, when the mother was elderly and dependent upon the 2nd defendant suggests that the deeds were deliberately created by him rather than voluntarily executed by her.
Ex.A4 also fails to refer to the shares of the daughters and other heirs. It indicates transfer of the entire property described therein, which the mother, even if she possessed a fractional share, could never have 20 conveyed. Thus, this exhibit is insufficient to divest the plaintiffs of their statutory inheritance rights.
29.The subsequent alienations begin with Ex.A5, the sale deed
dated 09-02-2012 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 3rd
defendant. This document derives its title solely from Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 and contains the same defects. The 2nd defendant claims to have become absolute owner under the settlement deeds and, on that basis, sold substantial portions of the property. However, the deed itself does not contain any recital that inquiry was made as to the existence of other legal heirs. There is no reference to the daughters’ shares, nor any assertion that they relinquished their rights. The vendee (D3), who deposed as DW2, admitted during cross-examination that he did not verify whether any other heirs existed or whether the mother was indeed absolute owner. Ex.A5 therefore stands on shaky ground because its validity is inseparably tied to the validity of Ex.A3 and Ex.A4, which themselves lack legal foundation.
Consequently, this document cannot bind the plaintiffs.
30.Ex.A6 is the registration extract sale deed dated 05-11-2024 executed by the 3rd defendant in favour of the 5th defendant and pertains to another portion of the suit schedule property. It Is a derivative document relying on Ex.A5 document itself which is defective. Ex.A6 cannot stand on better footing. Thus Ex.A6 cannot bind the legitimate share of the plaintiffs.
21
31.Ex.A7, is the register extract executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 4th defendant on 16-11-2015 pertaining to the portion of the suit property. A reading of the document discloses that even in this document discloses that the 2nd defendant asserts that he is absolute owner of the property. The deed does not reveal any inquiry about the purchaser into the shared nature of the inheritance under Muslim law.
There is no mention of the plaintiffs or 1st defendant. The vendee D.W.3 during the cross-examination also admitted that he did not enquire into the rights of the others heris and relied soley upon the assurances of the his vendor. It is well established that the vendee can acquire no better title than his vendor possesess. The document apprears to have been executed on the assumption that Exhibits A3 and A4 had conferred full title upon the 2nd defendant which on the face of the record and a admission is untenable. The absence of recital regarding the consent of co heirs reinforces the conclusion that Ex.A7 cannot effect the undivided share of the plaintiffs.
33.Ex.A8, the settlement deed dated 10-03-2016 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of his wife, the 6th defendant, is clearly a family arrangement without consideration. The document recites absolute ownership in favour of the 2nd defendant but contains no reference to other heirs. The fact that this settlement was made after disputes arose and at 22 a time when the plaintiffs began questioning the transactions casts serious doubt on the bona fides of the document. The document does not improve the position of the 2nd defendant and does not displace the plaintiffs’ inheritable rights.
34.The cumulative reading of all exhibits, A1 through A8, unmistakably shows that the original title vested in the father, that the mother never became absolute owner, that the settlement deeds Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 were executed without legal foundation, that the subsequent alienations Ex.A5 to A8 are derivative documents based on invalid title, The documentary evidence, when examined in the light of oral admissions, strongly supports the plaintiffs’ case and demolishes the defence version of an oral gift and absolute ownership in favour of the 2nd defendant.
35.Issue No.1 : Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for 5/9th share in Items No.1 to 3 of the suit property?
In determining whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 5/9th share in all the three items of the suit schedule property, the Court must begin with the undisputed foundation that the suit properties were originally granted to and stood exclusively in the name of late Gouse Mohiddin, the father of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2. The documents produced as Ex.A1 and
Ex.A2 clearly demonstrate that the land and house site were Government grants given to him alone, in recognition of his service in the Army, and that 23 he remained the recorded pattadar and possessor until his death on 28.04.2008. There is not a single piece of evidence, either oral or documentary, to show that during his lifetime he conveyed, assigned or gifted the suit property to his wife or to any of the children. This fundamental aspect is admitted by DW1 also during his cross-examination, for he conceded that all the revenue records ever stood only in the name of his father. In Muslim law, inheritance opens immediately upon the death of the propositus, and the shares of the heirs get fixed at that very moment, unless there exists a valid inter vivos transfer divesting the deceased of his ownership during his lifetime. Since the defendants were unable to establish any valid gift or transfer by late Gouse Mohiddin during his lifetime, the entire estate must be deemed to have devolved upon all the legal heirs in accordance with Sunni Hanafi laws of succession.
36.It is an admitted fact that the deceased was survived by his widow and seven children, namely five daughters and two sons, apart from the legal heirs of one pre-deceased son. Under Sunni Hanafi law, where a
Muslim male dies leaving behind children, the widow takes a fixed share of one-eighth, while the remaining seven-eighths devolve among the children, the share of each son being double that of each daughter. This is a rule of law and operates automatically without any dependence on possession, residence, marital status or any other consideration. The defence of DW1 24 that the daughters received their shares at the time of marriage is wholly untenable, because, firstly, no such fact is pleaded with specificity, and secondly, no documentary evidence of relinquishment is produced, even though relinquishment of immovable property requires a registered instrument. PW1, during her evidence, clearly stated that whatever was given at the time of marriage was only in the nature of customary gifts and not indicative of relinquishment. This testimony remained unshaken. The cross-examination of DW1 confirms that no release deed was ever executed by the plaintiffs relinquishing their inheritance.
37.The defence constructed by the 2nd defendant that the father orally gifted the properties to the mother collapses under its own weight.
For an oral gift to be valid under Mohammedan law, declaration, acceptance and delivery of possession must be proved to have occurred in one continuous transaction. DW1, who alone propounded this story, could not state the date, the place, the witnesses, the occasion, or even the act of delivery of possession. On the contrary, he admitted that his father continued to reside in the house until his death, that no revenue mutation was ever effected, and that the recitals of oral gift in the settlement deeds were inserted only on his suggestion. The total absence of any contemporaneous evidence, coupled with the clear admissions of DW1, makes the defence of oral gift not only improbable but wholly fictitious.
25
Once this defence fails, the mother of the parties cannot be considered an absolute owner; she inherited only a limited 1/8th share, and her capacity to deal with the entire property is immediately curtailed.
38.If the mother had only 1/8th share, as the law unequivocally mandates, the plaintiffs, as daughters, inherited their respective shares out of the remaining 7/8th portion. In a family of five daughters and two sons, the total distributable shares, excluding the widow’s share, amount to nine units each daughter taking one unit and each son taking two. This division yields five shares for the five daughters and four shares jointly for the two sons. Therefore, the plaintiffs, who constitute the five daughters, are entitled in law to 5/9th of the remaining 7/8th share, which, when proportionally spread across the entire estate, gives them precisely 5/9th share in every inch of the property left by their father. This is a mathematical and legal conclusion arising from the statutory rules governing Sunni Muslim inheritance. No document produced by the defendants displaces this computation.
39.All subsequent documents, such as the settlement deeds
Ex.A3 and A4 and the alienations under Ex.A5, A6, A7 and A8, cannot dilute or destroy the plaintiffs’ lawful shares, because a co-heir cannot be deprived of her share unless she voluntarily executes a registered deed of release or relinquishment. PW1 categorically denied any such 26 relinquishment, and DW1 himself admitted that no such document exists.
The mother’s settlement deeds could operate only to the extent of her 1/8th share. To the extent the deeds purport to transfer the entire properties, they are void and are not binding on the plaintiffs. Accordingly the Issue No.1 is answered in favor of the plaintiffs.
40.Issue No.2 :- Whether Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property is the exclusive property of the 2nd defendant ?
When the question arises whether Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property constitutes the exclusive property of the 2nd defendant, the entire case record, the oral admissions of the defendants, the recitals in the documents relied on by them, and the governing principles of
Mohammedan Law must be evaluated with utmost care. It is an admitted fact, which has emerged without dispute from both sides, that Item No.3, like Items No.1 and 2, was acquired by late Gouse Mohiddin under a
Government D-Form military patta during his lifetime. Ex.A1, the primary pattadar document, leaves no room for doubt that the entirety of the suit property originally belonged to the plaintiffs’ father. The evidence nowhere suggests that Item No.3 was ever purchased, improved, or acquired by the 2nd defendant through any independent source of income. There is also no evidence, even suggested in cross-examination, that the 2nd defendant had the financial capacity or opportunity to purchase Item No.3 in his own 27 name at any point of time. The origin of title is therefore firmly rooted in the name of late Gouse Mohiddin, and unless the 2nd defendant produces cogent legal evidence demonstrating a divestiture of that original title in his favour or in favour of his mother during the father’s lifetime, the claim of exclusive ownership cannot stand on any footing.
41.The 2nd defendant attempted to build his defence on two mutually destructive pleas. First, he claimed that the property was orally gifted by his father exclusively to his mother during the father’s lifetime.
Second, he claimed that Item No.3 was settled in his favour through Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 and that thereafter he improved and enjoyed it as his own.
Neither plea is borne out by evidence. As regards the plea of oral gift, DW1 could not state the date, place, manner or even the presence of any witness to the alleged gift. He conceded that his father continued to live in the suit property till his death, that the patta remained in the father’s name, and that no mutation or revenue entry was ever changed in favour of his mother at any time. He further admitted that the recitals regarding oral gift in Exs.A3 and A4 were inserted by him through the document writer. These admissions destroy the credibility of the plea of oral gift and the supposed exclusive ownership of the widow over the suit property.
42.When the plea of oral gift collapses, the legal consequence is that the widow inherited only 1/8th share under Sunni Hanafi Law and 28 could not have conveyed or settled the entire property, including Item No.3, to any person. DW1 in his cross-examination accepted that his mother was an illiterate woman, dependent upon him, and that he accompanied her to the Sub-Registrar’s office during the execution of both settlement deeds.
Such circumstances strongly suggest that the settlement deeds were procured on his insistence and cannot, by themselves, create or enlarge title beyond the lawful capacity of the executant. Since the widow had only a fractional 1/8th share in the entire estate, any settlement deed purporting to confer the exclusive ownership of Item No.3 upon one son is legally ineffective to the extent it exceeds her own limited share.
43.The next attempt of the 2nd defendant was to claim exclusive ownership on the basis of Ex.A8, the settlement deed executed by him in favour of his wife/Defendant No. 6. However, this document does not advance his case in any manner. Ex.A8 is dated 10.03.2016, long after the mother’s death and long after disputes arose between the parties. DW1 himself admitted in cross-examination that he made no independent document filed regarding the title of the property, he executed the settlement solely because his mother settled in his favor. A gratuitous settlement executed at a time when litigation was imminent cannot override the inheritance rights of the daughters or transform a joint family asset into the exclusive property of one co-heir. Moreover, if the root title of the 2nd 29 defendant under Exs.A3 and A4 is defective, then Ex.A8 is automatically rendered ineffective, since no derivative document can confer a better title than the one possessed by its settler.
44..What emerges from the entire evidence is a consistent chain of circumstances establishing that Item No.3 was part of the estate of late
Gouse Mohiddin, that it devolved upon all his heirs including the plaintiffs, that the mother had only a limited share and could not have conveyed the entire property, that the 2nd defendant’s plea of oral gift is false, and that the settlement deed executed by him in favour of his wife is legally ineffective to extinguish the rights of the plaintiffs. The claim of exclusive ownership is therefore inconsistent with the principles of Mohammedan inheritance, unsupported by documentary evidence, contradicted by oral admissions, and ultimately unsustainable in law.
45.In light of the above discussion, Item No.3 cannot be treated as the exclusive property of the 2nd defendant. It continues to be part of the joint estate of the heirs of late Gouse Mohiddin, and the plaintiffs are entitled to their lawful shares therein. Accordingly the issue NO.2 is answered in favor of the plaintiffs.
30
46.Issue No.3 :- To what relief ?
Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the entire material on record, this Court is persuaded to hold that the plaintiffs have convincingly established their inheritable rights in the suit schedule properties and that the defence set up by the 2nd defendant collapses at every critical juncture. The documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs, beginning with Ex.A1 is the the D-Form Military Grant issued exclusively in favour of late Gouse Mohiddin and the revenue extracts under Ex.A2, conclusively demonstrate that the original title to Items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule vested solely in the father of the parties. These documents stand unshaken and undisputed. What is of decisive significance is that no document whatsoever has been marked on behalf of the defendants to rebut this position. Apart from their oral assertions, the defendants did not place on record a single title deed, mutation extract, revenue entry, or even a contemporaneous record to show that the mother or the 2nd defendant had ever become the absolute owners of the suit properties. This complete absence of documentary evidence from the defence is fatal, because title to immovable property cannot be established by bare oral testimony when the plaintiffs have produced primary documents that affirmatively show title in their father.
31
47.The 2nd defendant, who claims exclusive rights through a vague allegation of oral gift and subsequent settlement deeds, bore the legal burden of proving that the mother had acquired full title. However, during cross-examination, he admitted that the recitals in the settlement deeds Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 were inserted at his direction, that he could not specify when or how the alleged oral gift took place, and that his mother was illiterate, dependent, and was taken by him to the Sub-Registrar’s office. His admissions, combined with the absence of any documentary proof marked on behalf of the defendants, render the plea of oral gift wholly untenable. Since the mother had no absolute title, she could have conveyed only her fractional one-eighth share under Sunni Hanafi Law, and her settlement deeds are void insofar as they purport to divest the plaintiffs of their lawful rights.
48.The subsequent alienations under Ex.A5, Ex.A6, Ex.A7 and
Ex.A8 also do not withstand scrutiny. These transactions derive their foundation entirely from Ex.A3 and Ex.A4; and once the root of title is found defective, every derivative instrument automatically loses legal efficacy. It is striking that even the purchasers did not produce any original sale deeds or supporting records on their side, no document was marked for the defendants at all. Their complete failure to prove their purchase or to show 32 due diligence in verifying the rights of other co-heirs reinforces that they cannot claim any better title than that possessed by the 2nd defendant.
49.The law is well-established that a purchaser of undivided joint property steps only into the shoes of his vendor and cannot secure any independent share unless the vendor himself proves an ascertainable share. Here, since the 2nd defendant did not prove any exclusive title and produced no document to support his claim, the purchasers in turn acquire no exclusive interest and remain bound by the plaintiffs’ shares. The absence of defendants’ documents thus strengthens the plaintiffs’ case and confirms the conclusion that all alienations are not binding on the plaintiffs.
50.In the present case, it is an admitted fact, that the late Ghouse
Mohiddin died intestate leaving behind Ameerunnisa Begum, five daughters and two sons and therefore, the plaint schedule property devolve upon all of them. The share of the widow in such a situation is 1/ 8th share and she was entitled to limited share and not to the entire property. The evidence on the record shows that Ameerunnisa Begum had executed the settlement deeds under Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 in favour of 2nd defendant. These settlement deeds though not effective beyond the share of her are nevertheless valid to the extent of 1/ 8th share that she was competent to convey. Consequently, the 2nd defendant, who is the beneficiary under Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 is entitled to succeed 1/8th share that 33 devolved upon his mother and which she subsequently settled in his favour. In addition to this, the 2nd defendant is also entitled to his own independent share in remaining 7/ 8th share which must be distributed among plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 as per rule, each son shall take double share with that of each daughter. It is therefore rights contended by the learned counsel for 2nd defendant that his entitlement flows both from his status as one of the residuary heirs of late Ghouse Mohiddin and from the settlement deed executed by his mother to the limited extent of her lawful share under Sunni Mohammed Law, after getting a part, the widow’s fixed share of 1/ 8th, the remaining 7/ 8 of the extent falls to the children, the rule being that each son is entitled to a share double that of each daughter.
In the present case, there all two sons (D1 and D2) and five daughters (plaintiffs). Thus the total units of division would be 2 units each for the two sons (2x2=4) and 1 unit each for 5 daughters (5x1=5) making a total of 9 units. These 9 units together represent the remaining 7/8 share of the estate. Therefore, one unit would be (7/8)/9=7/72. Each daughter being entitled one share. Thus taken 7/72, while each son, being entitled to two shares taken 14/72 which simplified to 7/36. Hence, daughter is entitled to 7/72 and each son to 7/36 of plaint schedule property.
51.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by passing preliminary decree for division of the suit schedule property into 72 shares 34 and to allot 7/72 share by each plaintiff collected all plaintiffs are entitled for 35/72 share. The 1st defendant being the son is entitled for 7/36th share.
The widow mother Ameerunnisa Begum is entitled for 1/ 8th share and the settlement deed valid only to the extent of 1/ 8th share. Accordingly, 2nd defendant entitled to 1/ 8th share (who is beneficiary under settlement) in addition to her own share i.e., 7/36th share and thus 2nd defendant is entitled and allotted to 23/72 share in total. The share divided by meets and bounds and put them in possession of their respective shares.
Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, this the 1st day of December, 2025.
Sd/- B.GAYATHRI,
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Atmakur,
(FAC) Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gudur.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined for
Plaintiffs : Defendants :
PW.1 :- Sd.Dilshad BegumDW.1 :- Syed Meera Mohinddin
DW.2 :- Sk.Gayazuddin
DW.3 :- Gadamsetty Balasubramanyam
Documents Marked for
Plaintiff :
Ex.A1is the Family member certificate.
Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of house tax demand registered in respect of Item No.2.
35
Ex.A3 is the Registration extract of settlement deed dt.18.12.2008 executed by Ameerunnissa Begum in favour of 2nd defendant.
Ex.A4 is the Registration extract of settlement deed dt.22.12.2008 executed by Ameerunnissa Begum in favour of 2nd defendant.
Ex.A5 is the Registration extract of sale deed dt.9.2.2012 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of the 3red defendant.
Ex.A6 is the Registration extract of sale deed dt.5.11.2014 executed by 3rd defendant in favour of 5th defendant.
Ex.A7 is the Registration extract of sale deed dt.16.11.2015 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of 4th defendant.
Ex.A8 is the Registration extract of settlement deed dt.10.3.2016 executed by 2nd defendant in favour of 6th defendant.
Defendants : Nil.
Sd/- B.GAYATHRI,
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Atmakur,
(FAC) Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gudur.
// True copy //
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Atmakur,
(FAC) Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gudur.
36