Page 1 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ASSISTANT
SESSIONS JUDGE AT METPALLI
PRESENT: SRI D. NAGESWARA RAO
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Metpalli
Monday, this the 4 th day of May, 2026
O.S.No.57 of 2023
(OLD O.S.No.10 of 2012)
Between:-
Jakkani Laxminarayana, S/o. Bhoomaiah, Hindu, Aged about 45 years, R/o. H.No.6-86/A,
Chinthakunta Village of Kathalapur Mandal....Plaintiff
And
(1) Jakkani Bhoomaiah (DIED) (2) Jakkani Srihari, S/o. Bhoomaiah, Aged about 25 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.6-86, Chinthakunta Village of Kathalapur Mandal.
(3) Karam Vijaya Laxmi (DIED per LR’s) (4) Vadla Konda Geetha, W/o. Suresh, D/o. Karam Vijayalakshmi, Aged about 25 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Kathalapur.
(5) Kadamanchi Jyothi, W/o. Anjaiah, D/o. Karam Vijayalaxmi, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-6-218, Shanthinagar, Metpally. Represented by her next keen guardian Vadla Konda Himaja @ Geetha i.e., Defendant D4. (As per the Orders in I.A.No.66/2025, dated:18-02-2025) (As per the Orders in I.A.No.60/2024, dated:07-02-2024, the Defendant D3 and Defendant D4 are brought on record as Legal Representatives of deceased Defendant D3)
...Defendants
This Suit is coming on 20.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A. Sridhar and J. Sudhakar, learned Counsels for the
Plaintiff and Sri G. Praveen Kumar and Sri Vemula Sunil Kumar, learned
Counsels for the Defendants; and upon hearing the arguments, upon considering the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:-
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 2 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.This Suit has been instituted by the Plaintiff –
(a)For Partition with metes and bounds and a Separate Possession of their respective shares to be delivered to the Plaintiff and Defendants accordingly, in respect of—
(i)Agricultural Land in Sy.No.103 admeasuring to an extent of
Acs.3-00 guntas, bounded by East: Agricultural Land of Vanga Devaiah,
West: Agricultural Land of Katipelli Rajareddy, North: Agricultural Land of
Duda Gangaram, and South: Agricultural Land of Gandla Gangaram (which is hereinafter to be referred to it as ‘A-Suit Schedule Property’), and,
(ii)H.No.6-86 bounded by East: Road, West: House of Koppula
Bhumaiah and Koppula Devaiah, North: Road and South: Open Land of
Beerla Erranna, Sanka Venkanna Mini Rice Mill (which is hereinafter to be referred to it as ‘B-Suit Schedule Property’). The ‘A’ & ‘B’ Suit Schedule
Properties are situated at Chinthakunta Village of Kathalapur Mandal.
AND
(b)For Declaration of the Registered Gift Settlement Deed vide
Document No.323 of 2010, dated:18.02.2010, executed by Defendant D1 in favour of Defendant D2, as null, void, and not binding on the Plaintiff.
(c)For Appointing Advocate Commissioner to allow the respective shares of the parties.
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 3 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
2. The contention of the Plaintiff
(a)The Plaintiff claim that, he is the absolute joint owner and possessor of ‘A’ & ‘B’ Suit Schedule Properties, succeeded by the Defendant D1 (father of
Plaintiff) from his ancestors.
(b)The Defendant D1, with an intention to deprive Plaintiff’s right and share, has delivered the possession of ‘A’ Suit Schedule Property by virtue of
Registered Gift Settlement Deed vide Document No.323 of 2010,
dated:18.02.2010.
(c)The conflict escalated in 1st week of November, 2011, when the Plaintiff demanded for Partition of his share in the ‘A’ & ‘B’ Suit Schedule Properties the Defendant D1 to D3 refused to do so.
(d)Under these circumstances, having no alternative legal remedy, the
Plaintiff is compelled to approach this Hon’ble Court for appropriate relief.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has instituted the present Suit seeking a Decree for
Partition of the ‘A’ & ‘B’ Suit Schedule Properties and setting Separate
Possession of ‘A’ & ‘B’ Suit Schedule Properties to the Plaintiff and Defendants and Declare the Registered Gift Settlement Deed vide Document No.323 of 2010, dated:18.02.2010.
3.Upon registration of the Suit, Summons were served on Defendants.
The Defendant D1 and D2 appeared through her learned Counsels. They filed their Written Statement through their learned Counsels. The Defendant D3 to
D5 filed memo adopting the Written Statement filed by Defendant D1 and D2.
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 4 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
4. The contention of Defendants
(a)Upon perusal of Written Statement filed by Defendants, it shows they denied all the material allegations against them which are not specifically admitted by them.
(b)They asserted that the ‘A’ & ‘B’ Suit Schedule Properties are not joint family properties or ancestral properties but the self-acquired properties of
Defendant D1, as such Plaintiff was never been in joint possession of the same.
(c)They asserts that the Defendant D3 got married long back and she left her husband and children as she is mentally sick and unbalanced. The
Defendant D1 and D2 are looking after Defendant D3 and have been treating her at Government Mental Hospital at Yerragadda, Hyderabad. Despite treatments given to Defendant D3, she is not mentally fit and health.
(d)They asserts that the Plaintiff executed and signed an Agreement (Oppanda Pathram) on Rs.5/- Non Judicial Stamp Paper, dated:09.10.2001, in favour of Defendant D1 agreeing not to claim any right over the ‘A’ & ‘B’
Suit Schedule Properties that belong to Defendant D1.
(e)They further asserts that Defendant D1 is entitled to gift, sell or donate his self-acquired properties during his life time, as such Defendant D1 out of love and affection has gifted the ‘A’ Suit Schedule Property to the Defendant
D2 through the Registered Gift Settlement Deed vide Document No.323 of 2010, dated:18.02.2010, before the S.R.O., Korutla.
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 5 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
(f)In conclusion, the Defendants contends that the Plaintiff has no legal standing or "locus standi" to claim Partition and the Plaintiff filed this false Suit with fabricated and concocted documents solely for the purpose of this litigation. The Suit lacks a genuine cause of action. Finally, the Defendants prayed for dismissal of the Suit with Costs.
5.Basing on the above factual matrix the following issues germane for my consideration:-
(i) Whether the Suit Schedule Properties are ancestral properties of Plaintiff and Defendants?
(ii) Whether the Plaintiff is in joint possession of Suit Schedule Properties?
(iii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for Partition of Suit Schedule Properties?
(iv) Whether the Registered Gift Settlement Deed vide Document
No.323 of 2010, dated:18.02.2010 executed by Defendant D1 in favour of
D2 is to be declared as null and void?
(v) To What Relief?
T R I A L :
6.During Trial, the Plaintiff (Jakkani Laxminarayana, S/o. Bhoomaiah) himself got examined as PW-1 and got marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-13. Sri
Pokathata Narsaiah, S/o. Bhoomanna got examined as PW-2, and Sri Boddu
Gangaram, S/o. Mallaiah got examined as PW-3, in support of Plaintiff’s claim.
In contra,the Defendant No.2 (Jakkani Srihari, S/o. Bhoomaiah) herself got examined as DW-1 and got marked as Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-11. Sri Vadlakonda
Geetha @ Himaja, W/o. Suresh got examined as DW-2, in support of
Defendants’ Claim.
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 6 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
7.Heard the learned Counsels for the both sides. They both reiterated their
Pleadings in their Arguments and finally prayed to dispose the matter on Merits.
8.Perused the Record.
9. Documentary Evidences of Plaintiff
(a) Ex.A-1, is the Certified Copy of Registered Gift Settlement Deed vide
Document No.323 of 2010, dated:18.02.2010, before the S.R.O., Korutla, executed by Jakkani Bhoomaiah (Defendant D1) in favour of Jakkani Srihari (Defendant D2) for the Agricultural Kushki Land in Sy.No.103/అadmeasuring to an extent of Acs.3-00 guntas, bounded as follows: East:Agricultural Land of Vanga Devaiah, West: Agricultural Land of Katipelli Rajareddy, North:
Agricultural Land of Duda Gangaram, and South: Agricultural Land of Gandla
Gangaram, situated at Chinthakunta Village of Kathalapur Mandal.
(b) Ex.A-2, is the Pahani for the year 2010-11 and Fasli year 1420, issued by Dy. Tahsildar of Kathalapur, shows that Jakkani Bhoomaiah (Defendant
D1) is the owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.103/అadmeasuring to an extent of Acs.3-00 guntas, and Duda Gangaram is owner and possessor of land Sy.No.103/అadmeasuring to an extent of Acs.0-00 guntas. The subject properties are situated at Chinthakunta Village of Kathalapur Mandal.
(c) Ex.A-3, is the Ownership Certificate for H.No.6-86, issued by
Panchayath Secretary of G.P. Chinthakunta, dated:08-12-2011. The subject document shows that Jakkani Bhoomaiah (Defendant D1) is the owner of
H.No.6-86, situated at Chinthakunta Village.
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 7 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
(d) Ex.A-4, is the Unregistered Impounded Sale Deed on Rs.3/- Non
Judicial Stamp Paper, dated:26.06.1987. The subject document is executed by Jakkani Bhumaiah, S/o. Ramaiah in favour of Jakkani Jaggaiah, S/o.
Ramulu, sold the house property (inside and outside) belong to Bhoomaiah by taking an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and handing over the same property to Jaggaiah.
(e) Ex.A-5, is the Original Copy of Report of Panchayath Secretary, GP
Chinthakunta, dated:28.07.2020, regarding H.No.6-86 and H.No.6-86/1. The subject document is the response of Panchayath Secretary of Chinthakunta
G.P. for the RTI of Jakkani Laxminarayana (Plaintiff), regarding H.No.6-86 and H.No.6-86/1.
The report of Panchayath Secretary, GP Chinthakunta is that –
H.No.6-86 is on the name of Jakkani Bhoomaiah (Defendant D1) got collapsed and a new house bearing H.No.6-86/1 was constructed by him in the land beside the collapsed house land. From the year 2011-12 property tax has been collected for the H.No.6-86/1 and the owner is Jakkani Bhoomaiah (Defendant D1).
(f) Ex.A-6 to Ex.A-13, is the Certified Copy of House Tax Register for the year 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18, 2019-20, and 2020-21, issued by Panchayath Secretary of G.P. Chinthakunta.
The subject documents evidences, Jakkani Bhoomaiah (Defendant D1) is the owner of H.No.6-86 and H.No.6-86/1, situated at Chinthakunta Village.
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 8 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
In Ex.A-6, Ex.A-9, Ex.A-10, Ex.A-11, Ex.A-13 it is shows that H.No.6-86 is collapsed.
10. Documentary Evidences of Defendants
(a) Ex.B-1, is the True Copy Extract of the Revision Nakal of house bearing No.5-110 for the year 1994-95, issued by Panchayath Secretary, G.P.
Chinthakunta.
The subject document evidences Jakkani Bhoomaiah (Defendant D1) is the owner of Bangalore Guna H.No.5-110 of size 40 X 34 and open plot of size 40 X 34.
(b) Ex.B-2, is the Original Ownership Certificate vide No.GPCHK/2/2011,
dated:17.08.2011, issued by Panchayath Secretary, Chinthakunta G.P.,
evidences Jakkani Bhoomaiah (Defendant D1) is the owner of H.No.6-86/1, situated at Chinthakunta Village.
(c) Ex.B-3, is the Original Registered Gift Settlement Deed vide Document
No.323 of 2010, dated:18.02.2010, before the S.R.O., Korutla, executed by
Jakkani Bhoomaiah (Defendant D1) in favour of Jakkani Srihari (D2) for the
Agricultural Kushki Land in Sy.No.103/అadmeasuring to an extent of Acs.3- 00 guntas, bounded as follows: East:Agricultural Land of Vanga Devaiah,
West: Agricultural Land of Katipelli Rajareddy, North: Agricultural Land of
Duda Gangaram, and South: Agricultural Land of Gandla Gangaram, situated at Chinthakunta Village of Kathalapur Mandal.
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 9 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
(d) Ex.B-4, is the Original Payment Receipt, dated:25.02.2012, for the house bearing No.6-86, issued by Bill Collector, Chinthakunta, shows Jakkani
Bhoomaiah (Defendant D1) paid house tax for the H.No.6-86.
(e) Ex.B-5 and Ex.B-6, is the Original Pabandi Pathram,
dated:11.06.1998, and Original Oppanda Pathram executed on Rs.5/- non
Judicial stamp paper, dated:09.10.2001.
The subject documents shows that Jakkani Bhoomaiah has given an amount of Rs.1,97,000/- and later given Rs.81,000/-. Out of Rs.81,000/-,
Plaintiff has brought two plots at Metpalli for Rs.30,000/- and remaining amount is for his life expenses.
The house and land i.e., Suit Schedule Properties belong to Defendant
D2. Defendant D1 should give amounts as he wishes to the D3 and her children. Out of two Plots at Metpalli, one goes to D2 and one plot plus
Rs.10,000/- (after getting finance amount) to Plaintiff. Plaintiff agrees and relinquishes his right over plots and houses in Chinthakunta Village.
(f) Ex.B-7 and Ex.B-8, are Original Payment Receipts, dated:10.05.1983, and dated:14.04.1983, issued by Sarpanch, G.P. Chinthakunta. The subject document is on the name of Jakkani Bhoomaiah.
(g) Ex.B-9, is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1981-82, in respect of suit Schedule-A Agricultural land, issued by Naib Tahsildar, Kathalapur.
The subject document shows that the Sy.No.103/అcontains land admeasuring to a total extent of Acs.4-31 guntas, situated at Chinthakunta
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 10 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
Village of Kathalapur Mandal.
Out of the said total extent Acs.3-10 guntas is owned by Sangem
Gangaram, Acs.3-00 guntas is possessed by Jakkani Bhoomaiah, and
Acs.1-21 guntas is owned by Badalu Boddaiah and Acs.1-31 guntas is possessed by Duda Rajam.
(h) Ex.B-10, is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2013-14, in respect of suit Schedule-A Agricultural land, issued by Naib Tahsildar,
Kathalapur.
The subject document shows that the Sy.No.103/అcontains land admeasuring to a total extent of Acs.4-31 guntas, situated at Chinthakunta
Village of Kathalapur Mandal, out of which Jakkani Bhoomaiah (Defendant
D1) is the owner and possessor of land admeasuring to an extent of Acs.3-00 guntas, and Duda Gangaram is owner and possessor of land admeasuring to an extent of Acs.1-31 guntas. The subject properties are situated at
Chinthakunta Village of Kathalapur Mandal.
(i) Ex.B-11, is the Original Payment Receipt, dated:25.05.2000, for the house bearing No.5-110, issued by Bill Collector, Chinthakunta, shows
Jakkani Bhoomaiah (Defendant D1) paid house tax for the H.No.5-110.
11. Oral Evidences of Plaintiff
(a)On perusal of oral evidence of PW-1 (Jakkani Laxminarayana, S/o.
Bhoomaiah), he reiterated the averments of Plaint in his examination-in-chief.
During his cross-examination, he deposed that he studied up to the
Intermediate level. He completed his schooling from the 1st to the 5th standard
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 11 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026 at Chinthakunta Village of Kathalapur Mandal, and from the 6th to the 10th standard at Morthad Village and Mandal in Nizambad District. He completed his 10th class in the year 1984. He was born in the year 1967 and is currently about 58 years old. His father was residing at Chinthakunta Village at the time of PW-1's birth. He added that he was born at his maternal grandmother’s house.
He admitted that he is the eldest son of his parents. As per their tradition, the first childbirth usually takes place at the maternal grandparents' house. Prior to his birth, his parents were residing at Chinthakunta Village. He stated that he does not know whether his parents permanently left their native Konapur Village of
Kammarpalli Mandal to settle in Chinthakunta Village. He has never resided in
Konapur Village at any point in time. His marriage was performed in the year 1998. At the time of his marriage, he was engaged in the cloth business. He denied the suggestion that after his marriage, he left his parents' house to set up a separate family at Chinthakunta Village and used to visit other villages for his business.
PW-1 denied the assertion that after the marriage of his sister (Defendant
D3, now deceased) and the birth of her children (Defendant D4 and D5), she used to roam the streets due to psychological issues. He also denied that he separated from his parents and family to live independently without any relation to them or his siblings, or that Defendant D5 (Jyothi) has psychological issues similar to those of Defendant D3.
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 12 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
The marriage of Defendant D3 was performed with Karam Laxman, a resident of Peggarla Village of Kathalapur Mandal. He does not know the marriage details of Defendant D5 (Jyothi), but he is aware that she eloped. He does not know whether Defendant D5 (Jyothi) has a disability certificate pertaining to mental retardation, or if Defendant D3 had a similar certificate for her disability.
He admitted that his sister (Defendant D3) and her children (Defendant D4 and
D5) belong to their family. However, he denied the suggestion that because they separated from the family, he is unaware of the disabilities of Defendant D3 and
D5.
PW-1 admitted stating in his examination-in-chief that he resides at H.No.6- 86 in Chinthakunta Village of Kathalapur Mandal, which is registered in the name of his father, Bhumaiah (Defendant D1). He also admitted that there is a house bearing H.No.5-11/1 in the name of his wife at Chinthakunta Village. His wife works as a beedi roller, and the said house was constructed by her after their marriage.
PW-1 stated that he used to maintain his parents and provide for their regular livelihood, but he has not filed any document to prove this. Because the aforementioned house is in his father's name, his father used to pay the property taxes to the Government. PW-1 claimed to have filed all necessary documents to show that he is residing in the house bearing H.No.6-86/A. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he failed to file documents proving his residence in the said house.
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 13 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
He stated that no Panchayath was ever held between him and his father (Defendant D1) regarding his claim over his father's properties. He denied the suggestion that a resolution was passed in a Panchayath held before 15 to 20 villagers, or that an agreement was written regarding his share of his father’s properties upon his separation from the family. When confronted with a document
dated:11.06.1998, he admitted that the signature shown on it belongs to him.
However, he added that the villagers obtained his signature on that document on 11.06.1998 without showing him its contents. He is aware of legal consequences in general, but stated he does not know that anyone giving false evidence before the Court is liable for legal action.
PW-1 denied that the said document was an undertaking executed by him in favor of his father, relinquishing his rights and claims over his father's properties on the grounds that he had already received his entire share. PW-1 admitted that he did not mention these facts in his plaint, nor did he file any civil or criminal case alleging that his father and other villagers obtained his signatures on the documents dated:11.06.1998 and 09.10.2001 under false pretenses.
The Suit Schedule ‘B’ property was constructed in the 1980s by Defendant
D1. He admitted stating in his examination-in-chief and the Plaint that the Suit
Schedule ‘A’ property was acquired by his father from his ancestors, specifically from his grandfather, Ramaiah. He claimed to have filed all documents showing that the Suit Schedule Properties were in the name of his grandfather, Ramaiah, and denied the suggestion that he failed to file such documents. He added that he filed Ex.A4 (an unregistered, impounded Sale Deed).
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 14 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
PW-1 admitted to filing several Petitions before the Gram Panchayath objecting to the mutation of the suit house. He also admitted that he scribed
Ex.A4 and did not mention its contents or transaction details in the plaint.
Furthermore, he conceded that sale deeds are usually in the possession of the purchasers, and he is neither the vendor nor the purchaser in relation to Ex.A4.
PW-1 denied the suggestions that his father never sold the property covered in Ex.A4, that his father never purchased the Suit Schedule Properties with that sale consideration, that Ex.A4 lacks his father's signature, and that he (PW-1) fabricated it. However, he admitted that Ex.A4 does not specify the exact properties his father allegedly sold. The Suit Schedule ‘A’ property was purchased by his father from its original owner, Shyam Sunder Rao, likely in the 1980s itself.
PW-1 denied the claims that his father did not purchase the Suit Schedule
Properties using the sale consideration from Ex.A4, that Ex.A4 was created after the present suit was filed, or that his father (Defendant D1) purchased the Suit
Schedule Properties exclusively with his own earnings. He further denied that his father (Defendant D1) is the absolute and exclusive owner of the Suit Schedule
Properties. He asserted that his father purchased the Suit Schedule Properties using joint funds earned by both of them, though he admitted this fact was not mentioned in the plaint. He also denied that his father duly executed a Registered
Gift Deed in favor of his brother (Defendant D2) prior to the filing of the present suit.
He admitted that his father purchased and was recorded as the possessor of the Suit ‘A’ Schedule Property prior to 1987. He denied the opposing counsel's
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 15 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026 assertion that the Suit Schedule Properties are neither joint family properties nor ancestral properties and that he consequently has no rights over them. He admitted that Defendant D2's name was mutated onto the Suit Schedule
Properties via a Registered Gift Deed executed by his father, and that Defendant
D2 is currently enjoying the said properties. He admitted that H.No.6-86/1 is in the name of his father (Defendant D1), who constructed a house on it under the
Indiramma Scheme.
The Suit Schedule ‘B’ house property, bearing H.No.6-86, collapsed in the year 2002. He admitted stating in his plaint that the Suit Schedule ‘B’ property was still in existence at the time of filing the suit, and he acknowledged that he did not clearly mention the nature or extent of the house property in the plaint. He does not know whether the house bearing H.No.6-86 currently exists in the Gram
Panchayath records.
Regarding Sandhya, the wife of Defendant D2, he admitted coming to know that his father had sold the house bearing H.No.6-86/1 (which was recorded in his father's name) to her. He acknowledged that his father received the sale consideration and executed a Registered Sale Deed in her favor. He denied the suggestions that the house bearing H.No.6-86/1 is unrelated to the present Suit
Schedule Properties, that he has no rights over the Suit Schedule Properties, and that he was never in joint possession of them.
He admitted to filing the present suit during the lifetime of his father (Defendant D1). He denied the allegations that he and the legal heirs of his sisters (Defendant D4 and D5) have no rights over the Suit Schedule Properties, or that
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 16 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026 he filed a false suit against Defendants D1 through D3 merely to grab the properties without having any legitimate rights. He further denied filing false and fabricated documents with a fictitious cause of action to claim the Suit Schedule
Properties. He also denied being liable to pay a deficit court fee on the grounds that he was not in enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Properties at the time of filing the suit. Finally, he denied the assertion that he does not have any share in the
Suit Schedule Properties, and he denied deposing falsely.
(b)On perusal of oral evidence of PW-2 ( Pokathata Narsaiah, S/o.
Bhoomanna ), his averments are in tune with the averments of the Plaintiff/PW-1 in his examination-in-chief.
During his cross-examination, he deposed that he came to the Court at the request of the Plaintiff. He stated that he is illiterate but knows the contents of his chief affidavit. He admitted that he is one of the elders in their
Chinthakunta Village. Defendant D1 (Jakkani Bhumaiah) shifted from Konapur to Chinthakunta about 50 years ago. The Plaintiff (Laxminarayana) filed the present suit against his father, brother, and sister for Acs.3-00 guntas of land and another Acs.0-04 guntas of land.
He also admitted that Defendant D1 purchased the Suit Schedule 'A' land (Ac. 3-00 guntas) about 50 years ago from people of the Velma community, and that the Suit Schedule 'B' house was constructed about 40 years ago on Acs.0-04 guntas of land in the village.
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 17 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
He stated that Defendant D1 sold his ancestral properties and used those funds to purchase the Suit Schedule Properties about 50 years ago. He admitted that his statement in his examination-in-chief, claiming the said properties were purchased in the year 1987, is false.
PW-2 denied the suggestion that Defendant D1 purchased the Suit
Schedule Properties without the funds from the ancestral properties, or that those properties are his self-acquired properties. However, he admitted that the Plaintiff separated from Defendant D1 about 20 to 30 years ago and constructed his own house. He further admitted that the old house constructed by Defendant D1 was demolished, and in its place, Defendants D1 and D2 constructed their current house (Suit Schedule 'B' house) under the Indiramma Scheme.
PW-2 admitted that a Panchayath was held in the year 1988, during which a resolution was made and signed by the Plaintiff, Defendant D1, and Defendant
D2, resulting in a family settlement. He added, however, that the said resolution later proved to be futile.
PW-2 denied the claim that Defendant D1 duly conveyed his self-acquired properties (the Suit Schedule Properties) into the name of Defendant D2 through a Gift Deed. He stated that he cannot provide the specific land particulars of the ancestral properties that were sold by Defendant D1. He admitted stating in his examination-in-chief that the Plaintiff never executed any undertaking or agreement in favour of Defendant D1.
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 18 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
He denied the suggestion that PW-1 never looked after the welfare of his parents, that only Defendant D2 cared for them, and that consequently, Defendant
D1 executed a Gift Deed in favour of Defendant D2 concerning the Suit Schedule 'A' Property. He admitted that in the normal course of events following a father's death, the eldest son performs the funeral rituals; however, in the present case, the Plaintiff did not perform his father’s funeral rituals, and Defendant D2 performed them instead. He added that Defendant D2 actively objected to the
Plaintiff performing the funeral rituals for their father.
PW-2 denied the assertions that Defendant D2 raised this objection because the Plaintiff failed to look after his father, and that the Plaintiff consequently has no rights over the Suit Schedule Properties. Finally, he denied the suggestion that he is deposing in favour of the Plaintiff merely at the Plaintiff's instruction.
(c)On perusal of oral evidence of PW-3 ( Boddu Gangaram, S/o. Mallaiah ), his averments are in tune with the averments of the Plaintiff/PW-1 in his examination-in-chief.
During his cross-examination, he deposed that he came to the Court at the request of the Plaintiff. He stated that he is illiterate. He knows the contents of his chief affidavit, having narrated the same to the learned counsel for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed the present suit against the
Defendants for his properties, i.e., agricultural land and house property.
Defendant D1 (Jakkani Bhumaiah) shifted from Konapur to Chinthakunta
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 19 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026 about 50 years ago. The wife of Defendant D1 purchased the Suit Schedule
Properties. PW-3 stated he does not know in whose name the said properties were registered after the purchase.
PW-3 admitted that the wife of Defendant D1 purchased the Suit Schedule 'A' land (Acs.3-00 guntas) about 50 years ago from a person belonging to the
Velma community, namely Shyamsundar Rao. He also admitted that the Suit
Schedule 'B' house was constructed about 40 years ago on Acs.0-04 guntas of land in the village. He was not a witness to the alleged transaction, and he does not know the sale consideration involved.
He affirmed that the contents of his chief affidavit are true. The Suit
Schedule 'B' house property was constructed by Defendant D1 (Bhumaiah). He admitted stating in his examination-in-chief that Defendant D1 is the owner and possessor of the Suit Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties, though he deposed in his oral evidence that the wife of Defendant D1 purchased those properties.
PW-3 admitted stating in his examination-in-chief that the Suit Schedule properties ('A' and 'B') are ancestral, undivided joint family properties that devolved upon Defendant D1 (Bhumaiah) from his ancestors; however, he contradicted this by stating that the said properties were purchased by the wife of
Defendant D1. He also admitted stating in his chief affidavit that the Suit Schedule properties were acquired by selling their ancestral properties a long time ago. He claimed that about 50 years ago, they sold their ancestral properties (i.e., house property and agricultural lands), but he cannot provide detailed particulars of those properties, nor can he state the sale consideration involved in those alleged
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 20 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026 transactions.
PW-3 denied the suggestion that Defendant D1 never sold any of his ancestral properties to purchase the present Suit Schedule Properties. He maintained that the Suit Schedule Properties were purchased in the name of the wife of Defendant D1 using funds from the ancestral properties. However, he stated that he does not know whether the Suit Schedule properties ('A' and 'B') were ever actually registered in the name of the wife of Defendant D1 at any point in time.
He denied the claims that Defendant D1 migrated from Konapur Village to
Chinthakunta Village more than 50 years ago and used his own earned money to purchase the Suit Schedule 'A' Property and construct the house on the Suit
Schedule 'B' Property, making them his self-acquired properties. He also denied the suggestion that because the Suit Schedule Properties are the self-acquired properties of Defendant D1, Defendant D1 duly transferred them into the names of Defendant D2 and Defendant D2’s wife by executing a Registered Sale Deed and a Registered Gift Settlement Deed. He admitted that the Plaintiff has been his tenant for about 10 years.
He denied the assertions that the Plaintiff never acquired any right over the
Suit Schedule Properties and was never in joint possession of them. He further denied that the Plaintiff has no rights over the Suit Schedule Properties and filed a false suit against the Defendants to obtain wrongful gain. The present suit was filed about 13 to 14 years ago. He also denied the suggestion that he knows nothing about the facts of the case, and he firmly denied deposing falsely.
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 21 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
12. Oral Evidences of Defendants
(a)On perusal of oral evidence of DW-1 ( Jakkani Srihari, S/o. Bhoomaiah ), he reiterated the averments of Written Statement in his examination-in-chief.
During his cross-examination, he deposed that his father purchased the house site (old H.No.6-86 and new H.No.6-86/1) of the Suit Schedule 'B' property about 50 years ago. He does not know from whom his father purchased it. His maternal grandmother's native place is Chinthakunta Village. He denied the suggestion that the said house site was purchased by his maternal grandmother rather than by his father.
His father purchased the agricultural land of the Suit Schedule 'A' property (Sy.No.103/A, to an extent of Acs.3-00 guntas) about 50 years ago from one
Shyamsundar Rao.
He admitted stating in his examination-in-chief that his brother (the Plaintiff) has been living separately since his marriage, which took place over 30 years ago. He denied the suggestion that his brother lived with them in the said house prior to his marriage, or that his brother helped construct the house alongside
Defendant D1 (their father). He further denied the claim that his father constructed the house using the sale proceeds from land in Konapur Village. When shown the document marked as Ex.A4, he stated that the signature on it does not belong to his father.
He denied the assertion that his father, Bhumaiah, relinquished his share in the house in favor of his brother, Jakkani Jaggaiah, by receiving a consideration of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and executing a Simple Deed on
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 22 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026 26.06.1987. Consequently, he denied the claim that his father had no right to execute a Gift Deed in his (DW-1's) favour concerning the agricultural land (Suit
Schedule 'A' property).
He admitted that his father executed a Registered Sale Deed (Document
No. 2296/2020, dated:11.05.2020) in favor of DW-1's wife in respect of the house bearing H.No.6-86/1, and that this occurred during the pendency of the present suit.
DW-1 denied the suggestion that the document marked as Ex.B5 was forfeited on the grounds that no land was actually given to the Plaintiff as per that agreement dated:12.06.1998. He also denied the claim that the Plaintiff did not agree to the terms of the agreement and left immediately after signing it. He admitted that the said agreement was prepared by the village elders, but he denied the suggestion that he was unaware of its contents. He denied the claim that, contrary to Ex.B6, his father had not paid any amount to the Plaintiff either at the time of or after the execution of Ex.B6. He affirmed that he knows the contents of Ex.B6.
DW-1 denied the assertions that his father purchased the house site using the sale proceeds from lands sold in Konapur Village, that the Suit Schedule
Properties are joint family properties, and that the Plaintiff has a right over them due to his funds being invested in the construction of the house and the purchase of the agricultural land. Finally, he firmly denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely in order to withhold the Plaintiff's share in the Suit Schedule Properties.
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 23 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
(b)On perusal of oral evidence of DW-2 ( Vadlakonda Geetha @ Himaja,
W/o. Suresh ), she reiterated the averments of Written Statement in her examination-in-chief.
During her cross-examination, she deposed that she studied up to the 5th class at Chinthakunta Village. She affirmed that she knows the contents of her chief affidavit. She does not remember when her mother, Vijaya Laxmi (Defendant
D3), died. She came to know through Defendant D2 (Srihari), who is her younger maternal uncle, that her maternal grandfather acquired the agricultural land and house property (the Suit Schedule Properties) at Chinthakunta Village. She does not know when he purchased the Suit Schedule Properties or when the alleged
Registered Gift Settlement Deed was executed by him in favor of her younger maternal uncle (Defendant D2). She stated that she came to know about the alleged Registered Gift Settlement Deed through Defendant D2.
She deposed that her maternal grandfather sold the house property to one
Jakkani Sandhya, the wife of Defendant D2. She came to know this fact through
Defendant D2 as well. She stated that after her birth, her mother became insane and mentally disordered, and that her maternal grandmother looked after her during her tender age. She denied the suggestion that her mother never became insane or mentally disordered, or that she never roamed the roads. Her father belongs to Peggarla Village. Her father never obtained a divorce from her mother and never entered into any other marriage. Her father died later. She admitted that her mother has also died, and that her younger maternal uncle (Defendant
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 24 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
D2) performed her mother's funeral rituals.
DW-2 denied the assertions that her maternal grandfather did not acquire the Suit Schedule Properties himself and that the said properties are ancestral.
She stated that only Defendant D2 looked after them. She acknowledged that they (she and her sibling) have no rights over the Suit Schedule Properties. She admitted that she was brought to the Court by Defendant D2. Finally, she denied the suggestion that she is deposing based solely on the narration of Defendant D2 without actually knowing anything about the facts of the case.
Appreciation of Evidences
13.The core dispute in the present Suit revolves around whether the schedule 'A' and 'B' properties are ancestral joint family assets amenable to Partition or the absolute self-acquired properties of Defendant D1. The Plaintiff asserts that the properties are ancestral, inherited from his grandfather, and seeks Partition, separate possession, and the cancellation of a 2010 Registered Gift Deed executed by his father (Defendant D1) in favour of his brother (Defendant D2) to deprive him of his share.
Conversely, the Defendants fiercely contest this claim, contending that the properties were independently acquired by Defendant D1, who rightfully gifted them to Defendant D2. Furthermore, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiff is legally estopped from claiming any share, having already severed joint family ties and explicitly relinquished all rights over the suit properties upon receiving substantial financial compensation through prior family settlement agreements executed in 1998 and 2001.
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 25 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
14. On perusal of Oral evidences of both parties, it show—
(i)The core controversy in the present Suit revolves around the nature of the
Suit Schedule Properties—whether they are ancestral/coparcenary properties as claimed by the Plaintiff, or the self-acquired properties of Defendant D1, and whether a prior family settlement or relinquishment extinguishes the Plaintiff's claim.
(ii) Plaintiff’s Evidence (PW-1 to PW-3)—The initial burden of proof (onus probandi) rests on the Plaintiff to establish the existence of an ancestral nucleus from which the suit properties were acquired.
PW-1 made a crucial admission during cross-examination regarding the document dated:11.06.1998 (Ex.B5/Ex.B6). He admitted his signature on the document but pleaded ignorance of its contents, claiming it was obtained by village elders. In law, once execution (signature) is admitted, the burden shifts entirely to the executant (PW-1) to prove that it was obtained by fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation. Mere oral denial of knowing the contents is generally insufficient to rebut the documentary evidence under Section 91 and Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.
PW-1 admitted to scribing Ex.A4 (an unregistered, impounded sale deed) himself, despite neither being the vendor nor the purchaser, and failing to plead this document in his plaint. This damages his credibility and invokes the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (though strictly a rule of caution, it severely taints the reliability of his testimony).
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 26 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
The testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3, introduced to corroborate the Plaintiff, suffer from fatal contradictions that strike at the root of the Plaintiff's case.
While PW-1 explicitly denied any Panchayath regarding property division, his own witness, PW-2, categorically admitted that a Panchayath was held in 1988, resulting in a family settlement signed by the Plaintiff and Defendants D1 and D2. This material contradiction severely undermines the Plaintiff's assertion that no prior settlement occurred.
PW-3 introduces a completely alien theory to the pleadings. While the
Plaintiff claims the property was acquired by his father (Defendant D1) using ancestral funds, PW-3 deposed that the property was purchased by the wife of
Defendant D1. Evidence beyond the pleadings cannot be looked into, and this contradiction destroys the cohesive narrative of the property's origin. Furthermore,
PW-3 admitted to being the Plaintiff's tenant for 10 years, rendering him an "interested witness" whose testimony requires strict corroboration, which is lacking here.
(iii) Defendants’ Evidence (DW-1 & DW-2)—DW-1 (Defendant D2) maintained the defence that the properties are self-acquired by Defendant D1 and subsequently gifted to him. However, DW-1 made a significant admission that his father (Defendant D1) executed a Registered Sale Deed in favour of DW-1's wife for the house bearing H.No.6-86/1 during the pendency of the present Suit.
This specific transaction is squarely hit by the Doctrine of Lis Pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The alienation is not
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 27 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026 necessarily void, but it is strictly subservient to the final decision. The purchaser (DW-1's wife) pendente lite is bound by the outcome of the litigation.
The evidentiary value of DW-2 (Defendant D3's daughter) is virtually nil regarding the title and acquisition of the properties. She categorically admitted in cross-examination that she "came to know" about the acquisition of the properties, the sale to D2's wife, and the Registered Gift Settlement Deed exclusively through
D2 (her maternal uncle). Under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, oral evidence must be direct. DW-2's testimony regarding the property transactions is classic hearsay and is legally inadmissible to prove the truth of those transactions. She was merely brought to the Court by Defendant D2 to parrot his narrative.
(iv)Applying the standard of preponderance of probabilities—The Plaintiff's case suffers from severe foundational defects. The material contradictions between PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 regarding the origin of the property (Defendant
D1 Vs. Defendant D1's wife) and the existence of a prior settlement (denied by
PW-1, admitted by PW-2) weaken the claim of an undivided joint family property.
More importantly, PW-1's admission of signing the 1998 document operates as a heavy evidentiary hurdle that he has failed to discharge. Conversely, while the defence's corroborating witness (DW-2) offers mere hearsay, the defence successfully extracted favorable admissions from the Plaintiff's own witnesses regarding the prior Panchayath and separation. However, the defence must face the legal consequences of alienating the property pendente lite (DW-1's admission).
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 28 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
15. On perusal of Documentary evidences of both parties, it show—
(i)The documentary evidence placed on record by both parties must be evaluated strictly on the touchstone of admissibility, probative value, and the legal presumptions attached to public and registered documents. The primary objective is to determine the nature of the properties (ancestral Vs. self-acquired), the factum of possession, and the validity of the alleged family settlement and subsequent alienation.
(ii) For Schedule ‘A’ Agricultural Land—Ex.B-9 (Pahani for 1981-82)—This is a crucial document establishing the earliest recorded position. It reflects that out of Acs.4-31 guntas in Sy.No.103/A, Defendant D1 (Jakkani Bhoomaiah) was in possession of Acs.3-00 guntas, while title/ownership was recorded under Sangem
Gangaram. This supports the Defence's narrative that Defendant D1 acquired the property independently (likely from a third party, corroborated by PW/DW testimonies of purchasing from Velma people/Shyamsundar Rao) rather than inheriting it as an ancestral nucleus.
Ex.A-2 & Ex.B-10 (Pahanies for 2010-11 and 2013-14)—Both sides rely on recent Pahanies showing Defendant D1 as the absolute owner and possessor of the Acs.3-00 guntas.
It is a settled proposition of law that while revenue entries (mutation/Pahanies) do not confer or extinguish title, they have high evidentiary value to establish the factum of possession and the nature of enjoyment at the relevant time. The unbroken chain of Pahanies exclusively in the name of
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 29 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
Defendant D1 bolsters the presumption that it was treated as his separate property.
The Registered Gift Settlement Deed (Ex.A-1 & Ex.B-3)—Both the
Plaintiff and Defendants have filed the same Registered Gift Settlement Deed (Document No.323 of 2010), wherein Defendant D1 alienated the Schedule ‘A’ property to Defendant D2.
As a registered instrument under Section 17 of the Registration Act, it carries a strong presumption of valid execution. Since the revenue records support Defendant D1's exclusive ownership, and the Plaintiff has failed to produce documentary evidence proving the existence of an ancestral coparcenary nucleus, Defendant D1 possessed the absolute right under the Transfer of
Property Act to alienate his self-acquired property via gift.
(iii) For House Properties (Schedule ‘B’)—Ex.A-5 (Panchayath Secretary
Report) & Ex.A-6 to Ex.A-13/Ex.B-2, Ex.B-4 (Tax Receipts & Certificates)—
These public documents cumulatively establish a clear timeline. The original
Schedule 'B' house (H.No.6-86) stood in Defendant D1's name, paid for by
Defendant D1, and subsequently collapsed. Thereafter, a new structure (H.No.6- 86/1) was constructed adjacent to it, again in the exclusive name of Defendant
D1, who consistently paid the property taxes.
The documents defeat the Plaintiff's claim of joint possession of the
Schedule 'B' property. The tax receipts and ownership certificates act as strong corroborative evidence of Defendant D1's exclusive possession and control over the structures.
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 30 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
The Unregistered Sale Deed (Ex.A-4)—The Plaintiff relies on Ex.A-4, an
Unregistered Impounded Sale Deed dated:26.06.1987, purportedly executed by
Defendant D1 in favour of his brother for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), likely to show previous property dealings or the existence of ancestral assets.
Under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, any non-testamentary instrument transferring an interest in immovable property of the value of Rs.100/- and upwards is mandatorily registrable. Although the document is impounded (curing the defect under the Indian Stamp Act), the lack of registration renders it inadmissible in evidence to prove the transaction of sale affecting the immovable property, as barred by Section 49 of the Registration Act. It can, at best, be looked into only for collateral purposes, but its probative value in establishing the
Plaintiff's core claim is legally negligible.
The Estoppel and Severance of Status (Ex.B-5 & Ex.B-6)—The
Pabandi Pathram (1998) and Oppanda Pathram (2001)—These documents form the bedrock of the Defence. They record that Defendant D1 gave the Plaintiff significant sums (Rs.1,97,000/- (Rupees one lakh and ninety seven thousand only) and Rs.81,000/- (Rupees eighty one thousand only) to purchase plots and for life expenses. Crucially, they record the Plaintiff's agreement to relinquish his rights over the plots and houses in Chinthakunta Village, explicitly stating the Suit
Schedule Properties belong to Defendant D2.
If these documents are construed as instruments creating or extinguishing rights in immovable property, they require mandatory registration. However, if they are construed merely as a memorandum recording a past family settlement
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 31 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026 or an acknowledgment of receipt of funds and severance of joint status, they do not require registration.
Even if the relinquishment of immovable property is deemed inadmissible for want of registration, the documents stand as an irrefutable admission by the
Plaintiff of receiving substantial monetary consideration and severing his ties with the family estate. Having accepted the benefits (funds to buy plots in Metpalli) under the settlement, the Plaintiff is barred by the Doctrine of Estoppel (Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act) from turning back and claiming a share in the
Chinthakunta properties.
(iv)The documentary matrix heavily favours the Defendants. The Plaintiff has failed to produce any title deeds, revenue records, or joint tax receipts to establish the existence of a joint family coparcenary or his joint possession. Conversely, the
Defendants have established Defendant D1's independent possession since 1981 (Ex.B-9), his continuous enjoyment and tax payments (Ex.B series, Ex.A-5 to
A-13), his valid alienation to Defendant D2 via a Registered Gift Deed (Ex.B-3), and most fatally to the Plaintiff, a documented severance and financial settlement acknowledging Defendant D2's rights over the suit properties (Ex.B-5 & Ex.B-6).
:: F I N D I N G S ::
16.The Issue No.1 & 2:
(i) Whether the Suit Schedule Properties are ancestral properties of Plaintiff and Defendants?
(ii) Whether the Plaintiff is in joint possession of Suit Schedule Properties?
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 32 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
Since both these issues are intricately connected and inter-dependent, they are taken up together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
The foundational fulcrum of the Plaintiff’s case rests on the assertion that the ‘A’ and ‘B’ Suit Schedule Properties are ancestral and joint family properties, rendering him a coparcener with a right to claim partition.
In Hindu Law, there is a legal presumption that every Hindu family is joint in food, worship, and estate; however, there is no corresponding presumption that a joint family possesses joint family property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Bhagwant P. Sulakhe Vs. Digambar Gopal Sulakhe & Others”, 1 held that the burden of proof (onus probandi) under Section 101 and 102 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, lies squarely on the Plaintiff to establish the existence of an ancestral nucleus from which the suit properties were acquired.
Upon critical scrutiny of the oral evidence of PW-1 (Plaintiff), he failed to produce any documentary evidence such as ancestral title deeds or revenue records prior to 1981 to substantiate that the properties were acquired from his grandfather, Ramaiah. Furthermore, the Plaintiff's own witnesses struck a fatal blow to his pleadings. PW-3 deposed that the property was purchased by the wife of Defendant D1. It is a trite law under Order VI Rule 2 of the CPC, that no amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never put forward in the pleadings. PW-3’s testimony introduces an alien theory that completely destroys the Plaintiff’s claim of an ancestral nucleus.
1. (1986) 1 SCC 366
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 33 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
Conversely, the documentary evidence produced by the Defendants, particularly Ex.B-9 (Pahani for 1981-82), demonstrates that out of Acs.4-31 guntas in Sy.No.103/A, Defendant D1 was in exclusive possession of Acs.3-00 guntas, while the title was recorded under a third party (Sangem Gangaram). This strongly corroborates the Defendants' narrative that Defendant D1 acquired the property independently. Under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, public records made by public servants in the discharge of their official duties (like
Pahanies) carry a presumption of correctness regarding the factum of possession.
The unbroken chain of subsequent Pahanies (Ex.A-2, Ex.B-10) and Property Tax
Receipts (Ex.A-5 to Ex.A-13, Ex.B-2, Ex.B-4) unequivocally establish Defendant
D1’s exclusive ownership, possession, and enjoyment of both 'A' and 'B' Schedule properties.
The Plaintiff’s reliance on Ex.A-4, an Unregistered Impounded Sale Deed
dated:26.06.1987, is legally untenable. Under Section 17(1)(b) read with
Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, an unregistered document cannot affect any immovable property comprised therein, nor can it be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property.
Consequently, the Plaintiff has miserably failed to discharge his burden.
The properties are the self-acquired properties of Defendant D1, and the Plaintiff is not in joint possession of the same.
Accordingly, Issue No.1 and 2 are answered in the NEGATIVE, against the
Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendants.
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 34 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
17.The Issue No.3:
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for Partition of Suit Schedule Properties?
The entitlement to Partition hinges on the survival of the Plaintiff's right over the estate. The Defendants have heavily relied upon Ex.B-5 (Pabandi Pathram, 1998) and Ex.B-6 (Oppanda Pathram, 2001). During cross-examination, PW-1 admitted his signature on Ex.B-5 but pleaded ignorance of its contents. In law, once the execution of a document is admitted, the burden shifts to the executant to prove that it was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. PW-1 failed to lead any evidence to this effect, thereby attracting the bar under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Furthermore, PW-2 (Plaintiff’s own witness) corroborated the defence by admitting that a Panchayath was indeed held in 1988, resulting in a family settlement. Ex.B-5 and Ex.B-6 explicitly record that Defendant D1 paid substantial amounts (Rs.1,97,000/- (Rupees one lakh and ninety seven thousand only) and
Rs.81,000/- (Rupees eighty one thousand only)) to the Plaintiff, out of which the
Plaintiff purchased plots in Metpalli. In these documents, the Plaintiff explicitly relinquished his rights over the properties in Chinthakunta Village.
While the Plaintiff may argue that relinquishment of immovable property requires mandatory registration, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “ Kale Vs. Deputy
Director of Consolidation” 2and more recently in “ Thulasidhara & Another Vs.
Narayanappa & Others” 3held that even an unregistered document of family 2. (1976) 3 SCC 119 3.(2019) 6 SCC 409
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 35 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026 settlement can be looked into for the collateral purpose of establishing a severance of joint status and the nature of the transaction under the proviso to
Section 49 of the Registration Act.
Having received significant financial benefits and having severed his ties with the suit properties decades ago, the Plaintiff’s present claim is firmly barred by the Doctrine of Estoppel encapsulated in Section 115 of the Indian
Evidence Act. A party cannot approbate and reprobate. Therefore, the Plaintiff has no subsisting right to seek a partition.
Accordingly, Issue No.3 is answered in the NEGATIVE, against the
Plaintiff.
18.The Issue No.4
Whether the Registered Gift Settlement Deed vide Document No.323 of 2010, dated:18.02.2010 executed by Defendant D1 in favour of D2 is to be declared as null and void?
The Plaintiff sought the equitable relief of Declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to cancel the Gift Deed (Ex.A-1/Ex.B-3). For a
Plaintiff to succeed under Section 34, he must establish a "legal character" or a "right as to any property."
As conclusively established in Issues 1 and 2, the Suit Schedule ‘A’ property was the self-acquired property of Defendant D1. Under general principles of Hindu Law and Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a Hindu male has absolute and unfettered rights to dispose of his self-acquired property in any manner he deems fit during his lifetime.
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 36 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
The Registered Gift Settlement Deed (Ex.B-3) was executed by Defendant
D1 out of natural love and affection in favour of his son, Defendant D2. The document complies with all statutory requirements of a valid gift under Section 122 and Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, including acceptance by the Donee.
Although DW-1 admitted during cross-examination that Defendant D1 executed a Registered Sale Deed in favour of DW-1's wife for H.No.6-86/1 during the pendency of this suit, which naturally attracts the Doctrine of Lis Pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, this fact does not resurrect the Plaintiff's dead claim. Section 52 merely makes the pendente lite transfer subservient to the final decree of the Court; it does not invalidate the prior 2010 Gift Deed, nor does it confer title upon a Plaintiff who has none. Since the
Plaintiff has no right over the property, he possesses no locus standi to challenge its subsequent alienation.
Accordingly, Issue No.4 is answered in the NEGATIVE, against the
Plaintiff.
19.TheIssue No.5: To What Relief ?
In light of the detailed findings on Issue Nos.1 to 4, the Plaintiff has failed to prove that the Suit Schedule Properties are ancestral or joint family properties, has failed to prove his joint possession, and is estopped by his own prior familial settlement. Consequently, the Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of Partition and
Separate Possession, nor is he entitled to the Declaration seeking the
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 37 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026 cancellation of the Registered Gift Settlement Deed. The Suit is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
20. IN THE RESULT, the Plaintiff's Suit is hereby DISMISSED. Considering the relationship between the parties and the totality of the circumstances, though the Suit is dismissed, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the parties to bear their own costs in the interest of justice.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 4th day of May, 2026. Sd/-(D. NAGESWARA RAO)
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant
Session Judge, Metpalli
:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS
PW-1: Jakkani Laxminarayana, S/o. DW-1: Jakkani Srihari, S/o. Bhoomaiah Bhoomaiah (Plaintiff)(Defendant No.2) PW-2: Pokathata Narsaiah, S/o. DW-2: Vadlakonda Geetha @ Himaja, Bhoomanna. W/o. Suresh (Defendant No.4) PW-3: Boddu Gangaram, S/o. Mallaiah. -NONE-
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF
Sl.No. Description of Document It is the Certified Copy of Registered Gift Settlement Deed vide Ex.A-1Document No.323 of 2010, dated:18.02.2010, before the S.R.O., Korutla. It is the Pahani for the year 2010-11 and Fasli year 1420, issued by Ex.A-2 Dy. Tahsildar of Kathalapur. It is the Ownership Certificate for H.No.6-86, issued by Panchayath Ex.A-3 Secretary of G.P. Chinthakunta, dated:08-12-2011. It is the Unregistered Impounded Sale Deed on Rs.3/- Non Judicial Ex.A-4 Stamp Paper, dated:26.06.1987. It is the Original Copy of Report of Panchayath Secretary, GP Ex.A-5Chinthakunta, dated:28.07.2020, regarding H.No.6-86 and H.No.6- 86/1. It is the Certified Copy of House Tax Register for the year 2010-11, Ex.A-6 issued by Panchayath Secretary of G.P. Chinthakunta. It is the Certified Copy of House Tax Register for the year 2011-12, Ex.A-7 issued by Panchayath Secretary of G.P. Chinthakunta. It is the Certified Copy of House Tax Register for the year 2012-13, Ex.A-8 issued by Panchayath Secretary of G.P. Chinthakunta.
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli
Page 38 of 38
Judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.10 of 2012), dated:04.05.2026
It is the Certified Copy of House Tax Register for the year 2014-15, Ex.A-9 issued by Panchayath Secretary of G.P. Chinthakunta. It is the Certified Copy of House Tax Register for the year 2015-16, Ex.A-10 issued by Panchayath Secretary of G.P. Chinthakunta. It is the Certified Copy of House Tax Register for the year 2017-18, Ex.A-11 issued by Panchayath Secretary of G.P. Chinthakunta. It is the Certified Copy of House Tax Register for the year 2019-20, Ex.A-12 issued by Panchayath Secretary of G.P. Chinthakunta. It is the Certified Copy of House Tax Register for the year 2020-21, Ex.A-13 issued by Panchayath Secretary of G.P. Chinthakunta.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS
Sl.No. Description of Document It is the True Copy Extract of the Revision Nakal of house bearing No.5- Ex.B-1110 for the year 1994-95, issued by Panchayath Secretary, G.P. Chinthakunta. It is the Original Ownership Certificate vide No.GPCHK/2/2011, Ex.B-2
dated:17.08.2011, issued by Panchayath Secretary, Chinthakunta G.P.
It is the Original Registered Gift Settlement Deed vide Document Ex.B-3 No.323 of 2010, dated:18.02.2010, before the S.R.O., Korutla. It is the Original Payment receipt, dated:25.02.2012, for the house Ex.B-4 bearing No.6-86, issued by Bill Collector, Chinthakunta. Ex.B-5It is the Original Pabandi Pathram, dated:11.06.1998. It is the Original Oppanda Pathram executed on Rs.5/- non Judicial Ex.B-6 stamp paper, dated:09.10.2001. It is the Original Payment Receipt, dated:10.05.1983, issued by Ex.B-7 Sarpanch, G.P. Chinthakunta. It is the Original Payment Receipt, dated:14.04.1983, issued by Ex.B-8 Sarpanch, G.P. Chinthakunta. It is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1981-82, in respect of suit Ex.B-9 Schedule-A Agricultural land, issued by Naib Tahsildar, Kathalapur. It is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2013-14 in respect of suit Ex.B-10 Schedule-A Agricultural land issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Kathalapur. It is the Original Payment Receipt, dated:25.05.2000, for the house Ex.B-11 bearing No.5-110, issued by Bill Collector, Chinthakunta.
Sd/-(D. NAGESWARA RAO)
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant
Session Judge, Metpalli
SCJ-cum-ASJ, Metpalli