IN THE COURT OF IX ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE CITY CIVIL COURT
AT: HYDERABAD
Tuesday, this the 31st day of March, 2026.
Present: Sri K. Murali Mohan, IX Additional Chief Judge.
O.S.No.702 OF 2013
BETWEEN: Neelam Kalavani @ Patarla Kalavani W/o. N. Srinivas, Aged: 39 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. 4-8-374, Algadda Bavi, Mettuguda, Secunderabad.
...Plaintiff
AND
1. Patarla Satyakala W/o. Late Laxman, Aged: 62 Years, Occ: Business,
2. Patarla Jitendra Hari S/o. Late Laxman, Aged: 36 Years, Occ: Govt. Employee,
3. Patarla Prashant Hari S/o. Late Laxman, Aged: 32 Years, Occ: Private Employee,
All are R/o. H.No.16-6-678 and 679, Osmanpura, Chaderghat, Hyderabad.
4. Smt. Shagant Vasudha Shree @ Patarla Vasudha Shree, Aged: 38 Years, Occ: Teacher, R/o. Saikrupa Nilayam, H.No.3-10-20/9/C, Gokulnagar, Ramanthapur, Hyd-500013. … Defendants
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of
Sri A. Karunakara Rao, learned counsel for plaintiff and
Sri P.B. Chakrapani, learned counsel for Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and of
M/s. S. Bastawal, Counsel for Defendant No.2 and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
Page No. 2 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IX ACJ CCC Hyderabad : J U D G M E N T :
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking for partition of schedule properties into 5 equal shares and to allot 1/5th share to plaintiff and remaining shares to the defendants, by passing a preliminary decree in respect of the suit schedule property and further to pass a final decree for partition of suit schedule property in pursuance of the preliminary decree for allotment of the respective shares of plaintiff and defendants and to put them in their respective shares and to direct the defendant No.4 to mutate the property of 1/5th share of the plaintiff in the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation records in pursuance of the decree by this Court.
2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:
The Plaintiff was born in 1971 at Hyderabad to Late Patarla
Laxman and Satyakala i.e., defendant No.1. The plaintiff has two brothers and one sister namely Jitender Hari, Prashant Hari, Vasudhasri i.e., defendant Nos.2 to 4 and among them, the Plaintiff is the eldest, defendant No.1 is her mother. It is further submited that her father late Patarla Laxman during his lifetime purchased a house bearing Nos.
16-6-678 and 679, admeasuring 340 sq. yards, under registered
Page Nos. 3 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad document Nos. 1238/1998 and 1258/1998 at the Sub-Registrar Office,
Azampura, Hyderabad and the Plaintiff, along with her parents and siblings, resided in the said property. The property continues to stand in the name of the deceased, who died intestate, leaving behind the
Plaintiff, his wife, two sons, and one daughter as legal heirs.
Subsequently, after the death of Late Patarla Laxman, his two sons who are the defendant Nos.2 and 3 herein have attempted to partition the said property among themselves, excluding the daughters. The Plaintiff, being a Class-I heir, objected to such partition and asserted that, as per
Section 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, all the Class-I heirs are entitled to get equal shares. Despite several meetings held in April and
May 2011 in the presence of community elders, no settlement was reached due to the refusal of the brothers to allot shares to the
Plaintiff and her sister.
3.It is further submitted that in earlier discussions, the brothers of the plaintiff have agreed to divide the property equally among the heirs, but however they later denied any share to the sisters. The
Plaintiff has reliably learnt that the brothers are attempting to secure the property by procuring a gift deed from their mother in their
Page Nos. 4 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad favour. Such an act would cause irreparable loss and hardship to the
Plaintiff. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff initially sought leave to furnish details of additional properties situated in Karimnagar
District as the details of which are not available. Subsequently, as such details became available, the details of the said Karimnagar property were incorporated into the schedule of properties by way of amendment pursuant to orders in I.A. No. 448 of 2012 in O.S. No. 980 of 2011 dated 23.04.2012 and prayed to decree the suit.
4.The defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed their written statement denying the averments of the plaint by contending that the suit is vague as all necessary and proper parties have not been impleaded. It is stated that all the properties of late Patarla Laxman have not been included in the suit for the reasons best known to the plaintiff. The suit is filed at the instance of the plaintiff’s husband. The fourth defendant, who is neither a necessary nor a proper party, has been wrongly impleaded and is liable to be deleted and the alleged fifth person is not shown as a party to the suit.
5.It is further pleaded in the written statement the suit property was acquired out of the joint funds of the deceased and defendants 2
Page Nos. 5 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad and 3, and is not the self-acquired property of the deceased. The plaintiff was married in 1995, whereas the property was purchased in 1998; hence, she is not entitled to any share. The property was purchased with the assistance of defendants 2 and 3. Moreover, the plaintiff was sufficiently provided for at the time of her marriage during the lifetime of the deceased. The allegation that the defendants intended to deprive the plaintiff of her share by executing a gift deed is denied. There was no such intention, and the claim of irreparable loss and mental agony is baseless. The plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit property. The suit is bad for misjoinder of parties.
There is no cause of action against these defendants, and the alleged meetings and discussions are denied. The court fee has not been properly paid, as the plaintiff is not in joint possession of the property.
The plaintiff resides at Mettuguda, whereas the defendants are in possession of the suit property; hence, payment of fixed court fee is not permissible and prayed to dismiss the suit.
6. The averments of the written statement filed by the defendant No.4 are that the Defendant No. 4 was impleaded as a party to the above suit at a later stage vide I.A. No. 1366/2018, dated 18-11-2020, which
Page Nos. 6 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad was allowed by this Hon’ble Court. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic,
Defendant No. 4 could not file the written statement within the stipulated time; hence, it is prayed that the same be taken on record and Defendant No. 4 be permitted to contest the suit. Defendant No. 4 has no objection to partition of the suit schedule property into five equal shares, each party being entitled to 1/5th share. The suit schedule property is ancestral property acquired by the father of
Defendant No. 4, Late Patarla Laxman, who died leaving behind the parties herein. Therefore, it is prayed that the suit be decreed by partitioning the suit schedule property into five equal shares and prayed to decree the suit in accordance with law by partitioning the suit schedule property into five equal shares.
7.Upon hearing both sides and basing on the pleadings and on documents filed by both sides my learned predecessor framed the following issues for trial.
Issues:
1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/5th share in suit property?
2)Whether suit schedule property is purchased by defendant Nos.2 and 3 and kept in the name of late Sri P. Laxman nominally?
Page Nos. 7 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad
3)Whether plaintiff was given her share in the shape of cash and gold at the time of marriage?
4)Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
5)Whether there are some other properties which are to be partitioned and shall be included in the suit schedule?
6). Whether the court fee paid is insufficient?
7). To what relief?
8.During trial, plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and got marked
Exs.A1 to A59 and in support of her evidence, the husband of the plaintiff N. Srinivas is examined as PW2. Per contra on behalf of defendants, defendant No.4 is examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.B4.
Defendant Nos.1 and 3 are examined as Dws 2 and 3 respectively and one Ponguvala Dharmaveer who is a third party to the suit is examined as DW4. Exs.B1 to B3 are marked during the cross examination of PW1.
9.Since Issue No.1 to 3 are inter related to each other and dependent on one another and the result of one issue is having its impact on the other issues, as they are closely connected with each other. Hence, to avoid the repetition and confusion in order to come to a right conclusion, it is just and proper to discuss the Issue Nos.1 to 3 together.
Page Nos. 8 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad
10.Issue Nos. 1 to 3:
1). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/5th share in suit property?
2). Whether suit schedule property is purchased by defendant Nos.2 and 3 and kept in the name of late Sri Patarla Laxman nominally?
3). Whether plaintiff was given her share in the shape of cash and gold at the time of marriage?
The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that plaintiff is the daughter of late Patarla Laxman and defendant No.1 and suit schedule property belongs to her father Patarla Laxman and plaint schedule item- 1 was purchased by him and remaining items are owned by her father late Patarla Laxman who died intestate on 24.11.2006, whereas brothers of plaintiff i.e., defendant Nos.2 and 3 are trying to knock away the suit schedule property. Though the matter was placed before the elders, they did not choose to give any share to the plaintiff from the suit schedule property which belongs to her father. The plaintiff being the class-I legal heir, is entitled for the partition of suit schedule properties i.e., Item Nos.1 to 13 and the suit schedule properties should be divided between plaintiff, defendant No.1 to 4 who are the class -I legal heirs of
Page Nos. 9 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad their father late Patarla Laxman and all the parties are entitled for 1/5th each.
11.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting defendant Nos.1 to 3 vehemently opposed the claim of the plaintiffs and contended that the plaintiff has taken her share long back and sufficient amounts were paid to the plaintiff and to her husband who purchased the house and other properties, as such, the plaintiff cannot claim the partition again. It is further contended that the item-1 of schedule property was purchased by defendant Nos.2 and 3 and the consideration was paid by them, but the property was kept in the name of their father out of respect as such the suit schedule properties are their exclusive properties and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff is not entitled for partition. Defendant No.4 mostly sailed with the plaintiff and not opposed the claim of the plaintiff for partition.
12.Now it has to be seen whether the suit schedule property belongs to the father of the plaintiff late Patarla Laxman and whether the suit schedule property was purchased by defendant Nos.2 and 3 and kept in
Page Nos. 10 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad the name of Patarla Laxman and it has to be examined whether the plaintiff received her share in the shape of cash and kind.
13.In support of her case, plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and her husband V. Srinivas Rao was examined as PW2. PW1 reiterated the averments of her plaint in her evidence affidavit. It is the gist of the evidence of PW1 that during the life time of her father Patarla
Laxman, he purchased the house No.16-6-678 and 16-6-679 admeasuring an extent of 340 sq.yds., under a registered sale deed vide Doc.
No.1238/1998 and 1258/1998 i.e., Item No.1 at Azampura, Hyderabad.
Since, the date of the purchase of dwelling house, the parents of the plaintiff, plaintiff herself and other family members lived in the said house and the property is in the name of her father who died intestate.
Her father died intestate by leaving her mother (defendant No.1) and two brothers (defendant Nos.2 and 3) and her sister defendant No.4 and plaintiff herself. After the death of their father, the plaintiff demanded for the partition and series of meetings were held but the defendants did not choose to give the share to the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit is filed for partition of suit schedule properties into five (05) equal shares. Exs.A1 to A59 documents are marked through PW1.
Page Nos. 11 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad
14.In her cross examination by learned counsel for defendants, PW1 deposed that, her parents did not give any monies and gifts at the time of her marriage. Her marriage expenses were borne by her father.
Their father passed away on 24.11.2006. Smt. Vasudha Sri (Defendant
No.4) is her younger sister and her marriage might have been held in 2001 or 2002. PW1 further deposed that after her marriage, herself and her husband together purchased the house property. Her husband has good political image in the vicinity of Secunderabad. PW1 further deposed that her husband filed sworn statement and declaration before the returning officer with regard to all the properties held by him and herself. She do not know whether her husband declared that she has 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties and she has not executed any promissory note in his favour against the said hand loan. PW1 further deposed that she has sent notices through this court in the present suit to Vasudha Sri (defendant No.4). The Item No.1 of suit schedule property is in the name of her father by the time of filing the present suit. The documents are produced to say that the item No.1 of suit schedule property is in the name of her late father. Exs.A1, A3 and A4 of the documents which are demonstrate acquisition of schedule property by her father and her father purchased the above said property
Page Nos. 12 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad from 8 members, who are brothers and sisters and that she do not remember their names and her father purchased the said property in the year, 1988. PW1 further deposed that the above said house was purchased during the service period of her father. Her father informed to his employer as per service rules about the purchase of item No.1 of suit schedule property. She has not filed any document to show that her father obtained permission for the purchase of the above said property. PW1 further deposed that the Item No.2 to 14 of suit schedule properties were personally purchased by her father. She do not have full details as to from whom and for what consideration her father purchased the above said item Nos.2 to 14 of suit schedule properties. The defendant No.1 is taking care of the agricultural properties after the demise of her father. Even by the time of presenting the suit, the agricultural properties are available with defendant No.1. None of the defendants paid any yield from and out of suit schedule item Nos.2 to 14 of properties. PW1 further denied the suggestion that it is not true to say that item No.1 of schedule property is self acquired of defendant No.1 and stated that before purchase of property, she has no income, but after such purchase, she is getting rents from it. Further during the cross examination of PW1, on
Page Nos. 13 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad confrontation of second document (consisting of 6 sheets of affidavit) filed by her husband (PW2) at the time of his contest for A.P.
Legislative Assembly, PW1 admitted the said document which is marked as Ex.B2. Again on due confrontation of third document consisting of 11 sheets of annexure IX C filed by her husband at the time of his contest for AP Legislative Assembly to PW1, PW1 admitted the same and hence the same is marked as Ex.B3. PW1 further deposed that she knows the details like Survey Nos. extents and boundaries of item Nos.2 to 14 of suit properties. The boundaries of Item No.2 of schedule property are South: South Central Railway Track, East: Road of P.
Venkatagiri/Venkat Rao, West: Land of Rajam, North: Lane and she do not remember the boundaries of Item No.10 schedule property. She has not cultivated the suit land personally and denied the suggestion that she filed the suit at the instance of her husband despite having no right.
15.Husband of plaintiff is examined as PW2. PW2 also deposed on the same lines of PW1. This court perused the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A56.
16.The plaintiff is seeking partition of total 13 items of schedule property which belongs to her father who died intestate. On perusal of
Page Nos. 14 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad entire documents on record and Item Nos.1 to 13, it is apparent that the plaintiff relied on Exs.A34 and A35 in respect of Item No.1 property to show that Item No.1 purchased by her father and Exs.A12, A14, A16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 26, 29, 33 are concerned in respect of Item No.2 to 13 of suit schedule properties. It is not in dispute that the Item -1 is in the name of the father of the plaintiff and Exs.A34 and A35 clearly shows that the said premises in D.No.16-6-678 and 16-6-679 are in respect of total extent of 340 sq.yds. The documents relied by the plaintiff to prove item Nos.1 to 13 belongs to her father late P. Laxman reflects his name as below:
SUIT SCHEDULE
ItemDocument Nature of Document/Parties No.No.Description of the property
ItemEx.A34SaleDeedvideDoc.Executed by No.1No.1238/1998 in respect of theChedu Nagesh land and old existing double& others in storeyed structures admasuringfavour of P. 170 sq.yds. is part of theLaxman premises No. 16-6-678 and 679, i.e., half portion lying on Southern side situated at Osmanpura, Chaderghat, Hyderabad.
ItemSaleDeedvideDoc.Executed by No.2Ex.A35No.1258/1998 in respect of theChedu Nagesh
Page Nos. 15 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad
For Itemland and old existing double& others in No.1storeyed structures admasuringfavour of P. 170 sq.yds. is part of theLaxman premises No. 16-6-678 and 679, i.e., half portion lying on Northern side situated at Osmanpura,Chaderghat, Hyderabad.
The total extent of Item No.1 property is 340 sq.yds., (which are purchased by P. Laxman through two registered sale deeds i.e., Exs.A34 and A35.
ItemEx.A12Pahanai for the year 2010 - 2011The name of No.3inP.Laxman Sy.No.419/3, admeasuring Ac.1.28was found in gts., situated at Korutla Villagethe and Mandal, Karimnagar District.possessor/patte dar column
ItemEx.A14Pahanai for the year 2010- 2011 No.4in Sy.No.420/2, admeasuringThe name of Ac.0.30 gts.., sitauted at KorutlaP.Laxman Village and Mandal, Karimangarwas found in District.the possessor/patte dar column
ItemEx.A16Pahanai for the year 2010- 2011The name of No.5inSy.No.432,admeasuringP.Laxman Ac.0.26 gts., situated at Korutlawas found in village and Mandal, Karimangarthe District.possessor/patte dar column
ItemEx.A18Pahanai for the year 2010- 2011The name of No.6inSy.No.517,admeasuringP. Sathyakala Ac.5.26 gts., situated at KorutlaW/o.P. village and Mandal, KarimnagarLaxmanis
Page Nos. 16 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad
District.foundin possessor/patte dar column
Item No.7Pahanai for the year 2010- 2011The name of Ex.A18 in Sy.No. 518, admeasuringP. Sathyakala Ac.3.12 gts, situated at MadhapurW/o.P. village, Korutla, KarimnagarLaxmanis District.foundin possessor/patte dar column
Item No.8Ex.A21Sale Deed vide Doc. No.Executed by 772/1992in respect of the landCh. Srinivas adme. Ac.0.37 gts, in Sy.No.440/Rao in favour , situated at Vellulla Village,of P. Laxman Metpally Mandal, Karimangar District
Item Ex.A22Sale Deed vide Doc. No.Executed by No.9771/1992 in respect of the landPadala Rajam adm. Ac.0.37 gts., in Sy.No.440/in favour of P. situated at Vellulla village,Laxman Metpally Mandal, Karimangar District.
ItemSaleDeedvideDoc.Executed TV No.10Ex.A24No.1790/1993 in respect of theNarayana Rao land adm. Sale Deed in respect ofin favour of P. the land Ac.0.37 gts., inLaxman Sy.No.441 situated at Venkatapur Village,KorutlaMandal, Karimangar District.
ItemSale Deed vide Doc. No.Executed by No.11Ex.A26741/1990 in respect of the landGajarla adm.Ac.0.37gts.,inSathemma in
Page Nos. 17 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad
Sy.No.440/ఆ,situatedatfavour of P. Venkatapur Village, KorutlaLaxman Mandal, Karimnagar District.
ItemSale Deed vide Doc. No.741/1990Executed by No.12Ex.A26in respect of the land adm.Gajarla Ac.0.36 gts., in Sy.No.440/ఈSathemma in situated at Venkatapur Village,favour of P. Korutla Mandal, KarimnagarLaxman District.
ItemReconveyance Deed vide Doc. No.Between No.13Ex.A291285/2004 in respect of thePresident of property bearing H.No.1-3-19,India, Rep. By adm. 541 sq.yds., situated atthe Director of Korutla Village and Mandal,Salarjung Karimnagar District.Museum (mortagagee) & P. Laxman (mortgagor)
ItemSale Deed vide Doc. No.Executed by No.14Ex.A33253/1973 in respect ofthe houseVeera Batlanni bearing No.1-3-19, adm. 156.27in favour of P. sq.yds., situated at KorutlaLaxman Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
On careful perusal of the above documents, it is clear that item -1 to 13 stood in the name of father of plaintiff late Patarla Laxman. The defendants failed to produce any documentary evidence before this court to show that the above items 1 to 13 does not belongs to father of the
Page Nos. 18 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad plaintiff and that it is the exclusive property of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and not liable for partition. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 mainly resisted the claim of the plaintiff in respect of Item No.1 contending that they only paid the consideration. But, no reliable evidence is placed before this court to prove their contention that the consideration in respect of purchase of item No.1 was paid by them and only out of respect they kept the property in the name of their father. Except their self serving statements and oral evidence of DWs 2 to 4, absolutely there is no material to disprove the claim of the plaintiff.
17.The defendant No.4 is examined as DW1 who supported the case of the plaintiff and it appears that the defendant No.4 was sailing with the plaintiff. However, in the cross examination of DW1, she gave some statements which are contrary to the case of plaintiff. In cross examination, it is deposed by DW1 that at the time of marriage of plaintiff, her parents gave dowry and gold items and when plaintiff wanted to purchase the property, her parents gave Rs.4,00,000/- to the plaintiff. It was admitted by DW1 that plaintiff obtained loan of
Rs.1,00,000/- from one P. Dharmaveer and when she failed to repay, her mother and brothers repaid it. The learned counsel for the
Page Nos. 19 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad defendant Nos.1 to 3 argued that from the above evidence of DW1, it is evident that at the time of her marriage, gold and dowry were paid to plaintiff by the parents and they also arranged Rs.4,00,000/- while purchasing the property by the plaintiff hence the plaintiff received cash and kind towards her share, hence the demand of the plaintiff for partition of suit schedule properties i.e., Item Nos.1 to 13 does not arise. This court is unable to accept the said contention of the defendants. It is the DW1 who deposed that certain amounts were paid to the plaintiff at the time of marriage as dowry and arranged
Rs.4,00,000/- at the time when the plaintiff purchased the property. The said admission of DW1 against the case of plaintiff will not binds the plaintiff in any manner. Even otherwise, if any amount or gold are paid as dowry at marriage of the daughter in the family, it cannot be considered that such daughter is not entitled for the share in the property. It is pertinent to note that payment of dowry is prohibited under law which cannot be equated with share in the property and cannot be considered the daughter received her share through dowry.
Accordingly, even parents paid any amounts to the children, either to their son or daughter when they are purchasing certain properties, has to be considered as support extended by parents to their children for
Page Nos. 20 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad their financial growth in securing the properties, but it cannot be said that the amounts paid if any, while purchasing the property by the daughter as her share.
18.It is pertinent to note that it is the not the case of the defendants that at the time when Rs.4,00,000/- was arranged by the parents of the plaintiff, the value of entire schedule properties were accessed their value and the shares of the parties were estimated. Absolutely there is no material to show that, the share of the plaintiff was estimated to
Rs.5,00,000/- or so and paid the same on various occasions. It is not the case of defendant Nos.1 to 4. Hence, it can’t be a ground to refuse the share of plaintiff when there is no prior partition and share of plaintiff was not assigned.
19.The defendant No.1 (mother of the parties) examined as DW2 who reiterated the averments of her written statement in her evidence affidavit. DW2 deposed that defendant Nos.2 and 3 acquired the suit property with common funds accumulated by the deceased father and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and it is not purely self acquired property of the deceased. It is further deposed that the plaintiff already got married in the year, 1995 itself, whereas the suit schedule property
Page Nos. 21 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad was acquired in the year, 1998, therefore, the question of plaintiff having a share in the property does not arise. It is further deposed by
DW1 that the suit schedule property does not absolutely belongs to the deceased Patarla Laxman and plaintiff is not entitled for partition of the suit schedule property. According to Dw1, the property was jointly purchased with the contribution of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and being the head of the family, it was kept in the name of her husband. Mere keeping the property in the name of Patarla Laxman does not create any right on him and plaintiff cannot claim share over the same.
20.It is further deposed by the DW1 that at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- and 20 tulas of gold was presented to the plaintiff and while she was purchasing the house, defendant Nos.2 and 3 gave Rs.4,00,000/- to the plaintiff in the year, 2005 for purchasing the property and also discharged Rs.1,00,000/- debt of the plaintiff to Mr.
Dharmaveer, hence the plaintiff received her share and not again entitled for partition.
21.DW2 was cross examined by learned counsel for plaintiff. DW2 deposed that, she purchased the property, but the property stands in the name of her husband. DW2 admitted that in Ex.A34 document, there is
Page Nos. 22 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad no mention that she paid the consideration to purchase the property.
According to DW2, she is not even the witness to the Ex.A34 sale deed.
But PW2 is the witness to the Ex.A34 sale deed. DW1 specifically deposed that the consideration was Rs.10,00,000/- for Ex.A34. DW2 further deposed that she do not know how many rooms are there in the property under Ex.A34 (item No.1) she do not remember what sale consideration was paid under 2nd time registered document Ex.A35.
DW2 further admitted that she has not filed any document to show for proof of payment of Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff by them purchase the house property. DW2 admitted that she is not an income tax assessee and there is no document to show that dowry of
Rs.75,000/- paid along with 20 tulas of gold to PW1. DW2 further deposed that she do not know that the plaintiff obtained loan of
Rs.2,00,000/- from A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urgan Bank Limited by pledging two houses and they repaid the loan and obtained the clearance certificate from the bank. It is deposed by DW2 that the marriage of PW1 was performed with PW2 on 05.05.1995 under Ex.A8, the husband of plaintiff i.e., PW2 paid the marriage hall charges of
Rs.5,000/- on 05.05.1995 issued by Sri Satya Sai Nigam.
Page Nos. 23 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad
22.According to DW2, the properties under Ex.A12 of Korutla village are ancestral properties i.e., the properties belongs to her father in-law and mother in-law. In Sy.No. 423 her elder brother in-law P. Shanker and her son naames were mentioned admeasuring Ac.1.06 gts and in
Sy.No. 419/3 an extent of Ac.1.28 gts are stood in the name of her husband. DW2 further deposed that it is true that under Ex.A18 the property in Sy.No.517 is in her name an extent of Ac.5.26 gts and
Sy.No.518 and extent of Ac.3.12 gts are situated at Madapur Village,
Korutla Mandal, Karimnagar District. DW2 further admitted that the total extent is Ac.8.38 gts and she has not filed any documents showing her purchase of the above said properties i.e., Sy.No.517 and 518 total extent of Ac.8.38 gts. DW2 further stated that it is not true to suggest that she has not mutated the properties on her name even though her name is reflected in Column No.13 in Ex.A18 and that Ex.A26 property is in the name of her husband vide Doc. No.741/1990 an extent of
Ac.1.33 gts. She do not know under Ex.A21 property situated at
Venkatapur Village, Korutla Mandal, Karimnagar District is sold to
Chikyala Srinivasa Rao S/o. Madhusudhan Rao of Venkatapur Village, vide Doc. No.722/1992, dated 15.06.1992. She do not know under
Ex.A22 the property is sold to one Padala Rajam S/o. Lingaiah an extent
Page Nos. 24 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad of 37 gts for an amount of Rs.10,180/-. DW2 further stated that she do not know under Ex.A24 vide Doc. No.1790/1993, dated 10.12.1993 is sold to T. Venkata Narayana Rao S/o. Venkat Rao for an amount of
Rs.3,600/- in Sy.No.441 an extent of 12 gts. and she know about
Ex.A29 and A32. DW2 further stated that she do not know about
Ex.A33. H.No.1-3-19, situated at Old Beet, Korutla purchased by her husband. It is true that the said house was titled roof admeasuring 156.27 sq.mts., is apparent land and her husband retired in 2002. After demise of husband they never purchased any land or house. DW2 further admitted that she sold Uppuguda property when her husband was alive for an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- and she do not know who purchased the same. DW2 further admitted that under Ex.A34 and 35 her husband purchased the property and her husband entered into an agreement with one Lalithamma in respect of A schedule property.
DW2 further admitted that O.S.No.1481/1996 was filed on the file of IV
Addl. Judge, CCC, Hyderabad and after the death of Lalithamma the suit was filed against her LRs and obtained decree.
23.The defendant No.3 is examined as DW3 and deposed on the same lines of Dw2 and reiterated the averments of their written
Page Nos. 25 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad statement in his evidence affidavit. In his cross examination, DW3 admitted that in his evidence affidavit he did not mention that he verified the contents of the chief affidavit filed by him. According to
DW3, he did not file any document to show that they accumulated funds to purchase the suit schedule property. He has not filed any document to show that he contributed the money towards the welfare of the plaintiff and defendant No.4 from the funds of photo studio.
According to DW3 at the time of marriage of PW1, his age was 15 years. He worked in their photo studio. DW3 further deposed that attending the works by the child below 15 years, is prohibited under law. He has not filed any document to show that he has contributed any amounts to the family. It is further deposed by DW3 that his father filed O.S.No.1481/1996 before the IV Senior Civil Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad against the LRs of Lalitha for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 10.04.1996 and the said suit was compromised and was decreed under Ex.A37 and A38 and compromise was recorded in Ex.A39. Subsequently, sale deed was executed by the Court as per Ex.A34 and A35.
Page Nos. 26 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad
24.From the above evidence of DW3, it is clear that he was aged about of 15 years at the time of marriage of PW1 and the marriage of
PW1 was performed in the year, 1995. Hence, in the year 1995, his age was 15 years. Whereas, the suit schedule property i.e., item-1 was purchased by his father under agreement of sale dated 10.04.1996.
Hence at the time of entering into an agreement of sale of Item No.1, the age of DW3 (defendant No.3) is 16 years. His father filed the suit for specific performance and finally obtained Ex.A34 and Ex.A34 sale deeds in the year, 1998 from the vendor. Hence, DW3 (defendant No.3) was still minor as on the date of acquiring Item-1 of suit schedule property under Ex.A34 and A35.
25.Though it is contended by DW2 and DW3 that the Item No.1 was purchased from common funds and defendant No.1 to 3 paid the consideration, but even according to Dws 2 and 3, they do not have any documentary proof to show that they paid the consideration for purchase of the suit schedule property. No scrap of paper is filed to show that they paid the consideration and kept the suit schedule property in the name of father of the plaintiff i.e., late P. Laxman. The filing of suit for specific performance by the father of the plaintiff P.
Page Nos. 27 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad
Laxman in the year, 1996 for specific performance of the agreement
dated 10.04.1996 and obtaining the decree and getting the documents
registered, would clearly shows that it is the father of the plaintiff P.
Laxman, who purchased the schedule property item -I and there is no basis to the contention of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 that they paid the sale consideration amount and get the document registered in the name of their father is not correct. More over on perusal of Exs.A34 and A35 registered sale deeds would clearly shows that, the consideration was paid by late P. Laxman alone who purchased the property. Hence in any of the angle, it cannot be hold that the property was purchased by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the name of father of the plaintiff late P.
Laxman. Coming to remaining suit schedule properties as referred above, plaintiff proved that Item No.1 to 13 are belongs to late P.
Laxman who died intestate.
26.It is pertinent to note that in respect of Item -2 the plaintiff filed
Ex.A12 - Pahanai for the year 2010 - 2011 in resepct of the land admeasuring Ac.1.28 gts in in Sy.No.419/3, situated at Korutla Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District which is existing in the name of P.
Laxman, in possessor column/pattedar column.
Page Nos. 28 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad
In respect of Item -3, the plaintiff filed Ex.A14 Pahanai for the year 2010- 2011 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.30 gts., in
Sy.No.420/2, sitauted at Korutla Village and Mandal, Karimangar District which is existing in the name of P. Laxman in possessor column/pattedar column.
In respect of Item -4, the plaintiff filed Ex.A16 - Pahanai for the year 2010- 2011 in resepct of the land admeasuring Ac.0.26 gts., in
Sy.No.423, situated at Korutla village and Mandal, Karimangar District, which is existing in the name of P. Laxman, in possessor column/pattedar column.
In respect of Item -5, the plantiff filed Ex.A18 - Pahanai for the year 2010- 2011 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.5.26 gts., in
Sy.No.517, situated at Korutla village and Mandal, Karimnagar District, which is existing in the name of P. Sathyakala W/o. P. Laxman in possessor column/pattedar column.
In respect of Item -6, the plaintiff filed Ex.A18 - Pahanai for the year 2010- 2011, admeasuring Ac.3.12 gts, in Sy.No. 518 situated at
Madhapur village, Korutla, Karimnagar District which is existing in the
Page Nos. 29 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad name of P. Sathyakala W/o. P. Laxman, in possessor column/pattedar column.
In respect of Item -7, the plaintiff filed Ex.A21 - Sale Deed vide
Doc. No.772/1992, dated 11.06.1992 executed by Ch. Srinivas Rao in favour of P. Laxman in respect of the land adme. Ac.0.37 gts, in
Sy.No.440/ఆ, situated at Vellulla Village, Metpally Mandal, Karimangar
District.
In respect of Item -8, the plaintiff filed Ex.A22 - Sale Deed vide
Doc. No.771/1992, dated 11.06.1992 executed by Padala Rajam in favour of P. Laxman in respect of the land adm. Ac.0.37 gts., in
Sy.No.440/ఈ situated at Vellulla village, Metpally Mandal, Karimangar
District.
In respect of Item -9, the plaintiff filed Ex.A24 - Sale Deed vide
Doc. No.1790/1993, dated 10.12.1993 executed by T.V. Narayana Rao in favour of P. Laxman in respect of the land adm. Sale Deed in respect of the land Ac.0.37 gts., in Sy.No.441, situated at Venkatapur Village,
Korutla Mandal, Karimangar District.
In respect of Item -10, the plaintiff filed Ex.A26 - Sale Deed vide
Doc. No.741/1990, dated 09.08.1990 executed by Gajarla Sathemma in
Page Nos. 30 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad favour of P. Laxman, in respect of the land adm. Ac.0.37 gts., in
Sy.No.440/AA, situated at Venkatapur Village, Korutla Mandal,
Karimnagar District.
In respect of Item -11, the plaintiff filed Ex.A26 - Sale Deed vide
Doc. No. 741/1990, dated 09.08.1990 executed by Gajarla Satheamma in favour of P. Laxman in respect of the land adm. Ac.0.36 gts., in
Sy.No.440/E situated at Venkatapur Village, Korutla Mandal, Karimnagar
District.
In respect of Item -12, the plaintiff filed Ex.A29 - Reconveyance
Deed vide Doc. No.1285/2004, dated 01.07.2004 executed between
President of India, Rep. By the Director of Salarjung Museum (mortagagee) and P. Laxman (mortgagor) in respect of the property bearing H.No.1-3-19, admeasuring 541 sq.yds., situated at Korutla
Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
In respect of Item -13, the plaintiff filed Ex.A33 - Sale Deed vide
Doc. No. 253/1973, dated 18.06.1973 executed by Veera Batlanni
Bhoomaiah in favour of P. Laxman in respect ofthe house bearing No.1- 3-19, adm. 156.27 sq.yds., situated at Korutla Village and Mandal,
Karimnagar District.
Page Nos. 31 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad
27.Exs.A12, Ex.A14, Ex.A16, Ex.A18, Ex.A21, Ex.A22, Ex.A24,
Ex.A26, Ex.A29 and Ex.A33 filed by the plaintiff would show that the scheudle property Item Nos.2 to 13 are in the name of late P. Laxman and he is the absolute owner of the property and it is not in dispute that said P. Laxman died intestate. From the material on record, it is evident that some of the properties are purchased by him and remaining were acquired by him from his parents. However, late P. Laxman is the absolute owner of suit schedule proprty. Under Section 8 of Hindu
Succession Act, when Hindu male died intestate, the property shall devolve upon the class-I legal heirs. Here the plaintiff and defendant
Nos.1 to 4 (who are wife, sons and daughters of the deceased P.
Laxman) are the class-I legal heirs and the suit schedule property shall devolve upon the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and plaintiff on account of death of P. Laxman who died intestate. The simple ground of getting marriage of daughter does not debar her right. Marriage of daughter does not amount to relinquishment of her right over the property of her father, after his death.
28.As per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, irrespective of the status of their marriage, all the legal heirs of deceased are entitled for
Page Nos. 32 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad the property of their father. As such, though the properties were acquired subsequent to the marriage of plaintiff, the plaintiff being class-I legal heir, can claim the share from the property of her father who died intestate. Hence, the suit schedule property which belongs to
P. Laxman shall be divided into five equal shares. As per Section 8 of
Hindu Succession Act when a Hindu male died intestate by leaving his property, the property shall be devolved upon all the Class-I legal heirs.
Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act reads as follows:- “Section 8 : General Rules of Succession in the case of Males :
The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of ;
a) firstly, upon he heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the schedule;
b) secondly, if here is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the schedule
c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased and
d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased”.
29. In view of the above, the plaintiff being Class-I legal heir of late P.
Laxman is entitled for equal share over suit schedule property on part
Page Nos. 33 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad with other legal heirs. It is the contention of the defendants that they paid certain amounts and gold to the plaintiff at the time of her marriage and also arranged Rs.4,00,000/- when she was purchasing the property and also discharged her debt of Rs.1,00,000/-. In this regard, evidence of DW4 is very much relevant. In support of the case of the defendants, DW4 Sri P. Dharma Veer is examined who is a retired employee. It is the evidence of DW4, in his chief examination affidavit that P. Laxman used to discuss everything about his family matters with
DW4 and the suit schedule property was acquired with common funds accumulated by P. Laxman from their family business of photography and v ideography works, and supported their family needs and education from the income generated from their family business. In his evidence affidavit, DW4 also deposed on the same lines of the written statement of defendant Nos.1 to 4. According to chief affidavit of DW4, the plaintiff availed loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from him and she keep her house property as security and when the plaintiff could not repay the said amount, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 paid the said amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- to him and he handed over the documents pledged with him to the plaintiff and the original promissory note dated 14.04.2005
Page Nos. 34 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad was lying with defendant No.1 but later it was misplaced. DW4 deposed to support the version of DW2 and DW3.
30.In his cross examination, DW4 deposed that he do not know whether defendant Nos.1 to 3 mobilized the common funds to the deceased P. Laxman for the purchase of suit schedule property.
Surprisingly, DW4 deposed in his cross examination that it is the self acquired property of late P. Laxman. According to DW4, the marriage of the plaintiff was performed by her father in 2005 and he again says that he do not remember the year exactly. According to DW4, the dowry and gold paid at the time of marriage of plaintiff was
Rs.1,75,000/- cash and 20 tulas gold which was given at the time of marriage was mentioned in a written document, but he was not witness to the said document. According to DW4, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 were school going children at the time of marriage of plaintiff. At that time, defendant No.1 used to run the photo studio.
31.In his cross examination, DW4 categorically deposed that defendant Nos.2 and 3 has not contributed to purchase the suit schedule property Item No.1 and defendant no.1 and P. Laxman together purchased the same. DW4 do not know whether the plaintiff purchased
Page Nos. 35 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad the Allugadda Bhavi property and it might be purchased by P. Laxman.
DW4 do not know whether the plaintiff has obtained loan by mortgaging the title deeds of the property in A.P. Mahesh Cooperative
Urban Bank and that DW4 paid Rs.1,00,000/- to P. Laxman and he repaid the same. According to DW4, plaintiff never gave the documents, but she signed as security to the promissory note. He do not know whether any document was filed in respect of Rs.1,00,000/- paid or repaid by P. Laxman.
32.It is pertinent to note that to the specific question put to DW4, he deposed that the statement made by him in his evidence affidavit at para No.9 that as the plaintiff failed to repay the amount of loan, her father P. Laxman along with defendant Nos.1 to 3 paid the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to DW4 and handed over the documents which were pledged with him to the plaintiff is in correct and what he stated in his affidavit he is wrong and what he is deposing before this court is only correct and that the loan was obtained by P. Laxman and he only repaid the same and plaintiff stood as surety. He do not remember the date or year when Rs.1,00,000/- was paid. According to DW4, he do not know how much share was paid to the plaintiff and he do not
Page Nos. 36 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad know the value of the suit schedule property item -I. He do not know whether the property was partitioned among the family members.
33.It is pertinent to note that DW4 specifically deposed that the statement made by him in his evidence affidavit at para No.1, that plaintiff having received amount worth of her alleged claim, again started her second round of claim at the instance of her husband which is unethical and unlawful is not true. Hence, DW4 denied his own statement mentioned in his evidence affidavit. DW4 also deposed that his statement in evidence affidavit at para No.10 that due to hike of the prices of the suit schedule property in the locality, she filed the present speculative suit is also wrong.
34.Though, DW4 was examined by filing his evidence affidavit to support the case of the Defendant No.1 to 3, the specific statements and admissions made by DW4 in his cross examination, specifically supports the case of the plaintiff and his version in cross examination goes against the case of defendant Nos.1 to 3. It is the contention of the defendants that the suit schedule property more particularly Item No.1 of suit schedule property was purchased with common funds with the consideration paid by defendant no.s1 to 3, but as the head of the
Page Nos. 37 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad family, it was kept in the name of late P. Laxman. The said fact was specifically denied by DW4 who categorically deposed that there is no contribution by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and the property was purchased by the father of the plaintiff late P. Laxman and his wife defendant No.1 supported him. DW4 specifically deposed that the suit schedule property is self acquired property of late P. Laxman. It was further deposed by DW4 that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 were going to school at the time of marriage of plaintiff and when the property was purchased by late P. Laxman. Though, DW4 made certain allegations against the plaintiff in his evidence affidavit, but he denied all those allegations in his cross examination and contended that it is false to state that the plaintiff borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from him and when she failed to repay the same, the defendants repaid the said loan and he returned the documents to them. It is the specific evidence of DW4 that late P. Laxman obtained loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from him and plaintiff stood as surety and later P. Laxman repaid the said amounts.
Hence, entire case of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and evidence of DW1 to 3 is found to be incorrect since the person who alleged to lend money to plaintiff i.e., DW4 himself denied the same. It was further denied by
DW4 that the plaintiff did not received the amounts from the family
Page Nos. 38 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad exceeding her share value and also denied that she filed the suit for wrongful gains.
35.From the above evidence of DW2 to 4, it is clear that except the vague statements of Dws 2 and 3, absolutely there is no basis or no documents to show that they paid an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- to the plaintiff and 20 tulas of gold as dowry at the time of the marriage. No scrap of paper is filed to prove the same. Absolutely there is no evidence to show that they paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the plaintiff when she was purchasing the house. The DW2 to 4 failed to refer any date when the said amounts were paid and in whose presence the amounts were paid to the plaintiff. No scrap of paper is produced
before this Court to show that those amounts were paid by them to the
plaintiff or her husband. Even otherwise, absolutely there is no evidence to show that the said amounts were paid towards the share of the plaintiff. The value of the properties were never assessed and worth or value of each share was not calculated. Hence the amounts if any paid to the plaintiff can’t be considered as her share. If the defendant
Nos.1 to 3 really paid any amount to plaintiff, they can initiate legal proceedings for recovery but can’t be considered as her share and
Page Nos. 39 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad partition can’t be refused. All these said allegations were specifically denied by DW4.
36.In his cross examination DW4 did not choose to support the case of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and gave several statements contrary to the case of defendant Nos.1 to 3. From the evidence of DW4 and also from the admissions made by DW3, it is clear that at the time of marriage and at the time of purchasing the suit schedule property, the defendant
Nos.2 and 3 are aged about 15 years or 16 years only who are minors and were school going children, as such it cannot be accepted that they contributed the family for purchasing the suit schedule property. As such it cannot be believed that they contributed to the family and with the common funds and from their earnings, the suit schedule property was purchased and kept in the name of their father is not acceptable.
37.From the evidence of DW4, it reveals that the entire evidence of
DW2 and 3 is false who created a story of discharge of the loan of the plaintiff by P.Laxman and defendant Nos.1 to 3. The version of DWs2 and 3 that amounts were paid to the plaintiff was also disproved through the evidence of DW4.
Page Nos. 40 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad
38.It is pertinent to note that even if any amounts are paid towards the dowry of the plaintiff or if any amounts are arranged while she was purchasing the property that is only towards support by the family for their daughter. Without any documentary proof, it cannot be considered that the said amounts were paid towards her share. Without assessing the value of the property and without affecting the partition and without deciding the shares of each party, by alleging that certain amounts were paid to the plaintiff, the defendants cannot avoid to give the legitimate share of the plaintiff. More over the payment of dowry is prohibited under law and the defendants cannot show the amount paid if any for such lawful object, as the share of the plaintiff which cannot be permitted under law. Hence, absolutely there is no basis to the case of defendant nos.1 to 3 that already the amounts were paid towards the share of the plaintiff, as such she is not entitled for partition. For all the above reasons, the suit schedule property is liable to be partitioned into 5 equal shares and plaintiff is entitled for 1/5th share and Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.
39.In view of the above discussions, this court is of the opinion that the defendants failed to prove that the suit schedule property was
Page Nos. 41 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad purchased by defendant Nos.2 and 3 and they kept the same in the name of late P. Laxman. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
40.For all the above reasons, this court come to conclusion that the cash and the gold which were paid if any at the time of marriage of the plaintiff cannot be considered as her share and the Issue No.3 is decided against the defendant Nos.1 to 3.
41.In view of the above discussion, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff, Issue Nos.1 to 3 are answered against the defendant
Nos.1 to 3.
42.Issue No.4:
Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
The defendant Nos.1 to 3 though vaguely contended in their written statement that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, they failed to state who are the necessary parties to the suit and how the name of the father of the plaintiff late P. Laxman is reflecting in the documents produced by the plaintiff. No evidence adduced by defendants to show that the schedule property Item Nos.1 to
Page Nos. 42 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad 13 not belongs to P. Laxman and not liable for partition. Defendants failed to state who are necessary parties to the suit and how their non- joinder is fatal. Therefore, there is no basis to contend that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly Issue No.4 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
43.Issue No.5:
Whether there are some other properties which are to be partitioned and shall be included in the suit schedule?
Though, it is contended vaguely by the defendants that certain other properties were not included in the suit schedule properties, no such particulars are stated. It is pertinent to note that the defendants failed to state what are the other properties and which are left for partition. Almost, 13 items were included in the suit schedule property by way of amendment. Initially, suit was filed for item-I and thereafter item No.2 to 13 were added. Hence, there is no basis to conclude that the suit is bad for non inclusion of all the properties in the schedule.
Accordingly Issue No.5 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Page Nos. 43 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad
44.Issue No.6
Whether the court fee paid is insufficient?
It is not the case of the plaintiff that there was a prior partition.
When the plaintiff is claiming her joint possession and constructive possession over the suit schedule property, fixed court fee paid is sufficient. Accordingly, Issue No.6 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
45.Issue No.7
To what relief?
In view of the above discussions and from the findings of this court in Issue Nos,.1 to 6 as above, it is clear that, the suit schedule property belongs to late P. Laxman who died intestate. It is not the case of the defendants that there was a prior partition. It is the only defence taken by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 that, since certain amounts were already paid to plaintiff at the time of her marriage, she is not entitled for partition and has no legs to stand legally. The other contention raised by the defendants that the property was accumulated by their contribution is not proved. The defendants failed to prove
before this Court that they only purchased the suit schedule properties.
Page Nos. 44 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad
The further contention raised by the defendant nos.1 to 3 that the marriage of the plaintiff was performed in the year, 1995 whereas the item- 1 was purchased in the year, 1998, hence she cannot claim the partition is not a valid and sound legal principle. The other contentions raised by defendants that the property which was acquired subsequent to the marriage of the plaintiff is not liable for partition and plaintiff cannot claim partition over such property acquired subsequently is not legally valid one. Under Section 8 all Class-I legal heirs are entitle for partition irrespective of their marriage. For all the above reasons, this court is of the opinion that the suit schedule property is liable to be partitioned into 5 equal shares and plaintiff is entitled for one such 1/5th share. Accordingly, Issue No.7 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.
46. In the result, suit is preliminarily decreed for partition to divide the suit schedule properties into 5 equal shares and to allot 1/5th share each to the plaintiff and remaining shares to defendant Nos.1 to 4. The parties are entitled for the separate possession of their respective shares in suit schedule property with metes and bounds.
No order as to costs.
Page Nos. 45 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad
In a Judgment between Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and another Vs. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan and others reported in 2022 (4) ALD 138 SC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India pleased to held at para No.33 that “once a preliminary decree is passed by the Trial
Court, the Court should proceed with the case for drawing up the final decree suomotu. After passing of the preliminary decree, the
Trial Court has to list the matter for taking steps under Order XX
Rule 18 of the CPC. The Court should not adjourn the matter sine die. There is also no need to file a separate final decree proceedings.
In the same suit, the Court should allow the concerned party to file an appropriate application for drawing up the final decree. Needless to state that the suit comes to an end only when a final decree is drawn. Therefore, we direct the Trial Courts to list the matter for taking steps under Order XX Rule 18 of the CPC soon after passing of the preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the property, suomotu and without requiring initiation of any separate proceedings”.
Page Nos. 46 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad
In view of the above Judgment list the matter to 24.07.2026 for taking steps under order XX Rule 18 of the C.P.C by filing an application for drawing up the final decree. Call on 24.07.2026.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Transcribed and Typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of March, 2026.
Sd/-
IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:
PW1: Neelam Kalavani DW1: Shaganti Vasudha Shree @ Patarla Kalavani @Patarla Vsudha Shree
PW2: Neelam Srinivas DW2: Patarla Satyakala DW3: Patarla Prashanth Hari DW4: Ponguvala Dharmaveer
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINIFF:
Ex.A1Certified Copy of Encumbrance Certificate dated 19.01.2016 issued in respect of the house property bearing No.16-6-678, 679, situated at Osmangunj, Hyderabad Ex.A2Certified Copy of Encumbrance Certificate dated 19.01.2016 issued in respect of the house property bearing No.16-6-678, 679, situated at Osmangunj, Hyderabad. Ex.A3Certified Copy of Market Value, Azampura, Hyderabad dated 08.09.2016respect of the house property bearing No.16-6-678, 679, situated at Osmangunj, Hyderabad. Ex.A4Certified Copy of Market Value, Azampura, Hyderabad dated 08.09.2016 respect of the house property bearing No.16-6-678, 679, situated at Osmangunj, Hyderabad.
Page Nos. 47 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad
Ex.A5Certified Copy of Market Valule in Sy.No.440/B, Metpally Ex.A6Certified Copy of Market Valule in Sy.No.440/D, Metpally Ex.A7Original Marraige Invitation Card of the plaintiff dated 05.05.1995 Ex.A8Original Marraige Hall and Catering payment receipt dated 05.05.1995 issued in the name of Neelam Srinivas (husband of the plaintiff) Ex.A9Original SSC Certificate of the plaintiff, dated 06.06.1988 Ex.A10Original Birth Certificate of the plaintiff dated 27.05.1971 Ex.A11Original death Certificate of the plaintiff’s father dated 11.05.2011 Ex.A12Certified Copy of Pahani for the year, 2010-2011 in Sy.No.419/A3 Ex.A13Valuation Certificate of Sy.No.419/3 Ex.A14Pahani for the year 2010-2011 in Sy.No.420/2 Ex.A15Valuation Certificate of Sy.No.420/2 Ex.A16Pahani for the year 2010-2011, Sy.No.423 Ex.A17Valuation Certificate of Sy.no.423 Ex.A18Pahani for the year 2010-11 Sy.Nos.517 and 518 Ex.A19Valuation Certificate of Sy.No.517 Ex.A20Valuation Certificate of Sy.No.518 Ex.A21Certified Copy of Sale Deed vide Doc. No.772/1992, dated 11.06.1992 Ex.A22Certified Copy of Sale Deed vide Doc. No.771/1992, dated 11.06.1992 Ex.A23Encumbrance Certificate of Doc. No.772/1992 and 771/1992 Ex.A24Certified Copy of Sale Deed vide Doc. No.1790/1993, dated 10.12.1993 Ex.A25Valuation Certificate of 1790/1993 Ex.A26Certified copy of sale deed vide Doc. No.741/1990, dated 09.08.1990 Ex.A27Valuation Certificate of Doc. No.440 Ex.A28Encumbrance Certificate of 1790/1993 and 741/1990
Page Nos. 48 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad
Ex.A29Certified Copy of Reconveyance of mortgage vide Doc. No.1285/2004 Ex.A30Valuation Certificate of H.No.1-3-19 Ex.A31Encumbrance Certificate of 1286/2004 and 1285/2004 Ex.A32Certified Copy of Re-conveyance of Mortgaged vide Doc. No.1286/2004 Ex.A33Certified copy of Sale Deed No.253/1973, dated 18.06.1973 along with translation. Ex.A34Certified Copy of the Sale Deed vide Doc. No.1238/1998 dated 01.07.1998 executed by Chedu Nagesh and others in favour of Sri Patarla Lakshman in respect of the land and old existing double storeyed structures admasuring 170 sq.yds. is part of the premises No. 16-6-678 and 679, i.e., half portion lying on Souther side situated at Osmanpura, Chaderghat, Hyderabad. Ex.A35Certified Copy of the Sale Deed vide Doc. No.1258/1998 dated 01.07.1998 executed by Chedu Nagesh and others in favour of Sri Patarla Lakshman in respect of the land and old existing double storeyed structures admasuring 170 sq.yds. is part of the premises No. 16-6-678 and 679, i.e., half portion lying on northern side situated at Osmanpura, Chaderghat, Hyderabad. Ex.A36Certified copy of written statement of the defendant Nos.1 to 5 in O.S.No.1481/1996 before the IV Addl. District Judge, CCC, Hyderabad, dated 04.07.1997 Ex.A37Certified copy of the compromise judgment in
O.S.No.1481/1996 passed by the IV Addl. District Judge, CCC,
Hyderabad, dated 02.07.1998. Ex.A38Certified copy of the compromise judgment and decree in
O.S.No.1481/1996 passed by the IV Addl. District Judge, CCC,
Hyderabad, dated 02.07.1998. Ex.A39Certified copy of Memo of Compromise filed by the parties in
O.S.No.1481/1996 before the IV Addl. District Judge, CCC,
Hyderabad, dated 30.03.1998 Ex.A40Certified Copy of the sale deed vide Doc. no. 959/2005, dated 11.04.2005 executed by V. Rajalingam in fvour of Neelam Kalavani Mudiraj Ex.A41Certified Copy for 1647 of 2005 along with original receipt
Page Nos. 49 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad
Ex.A42Certified Copy of plaint in O.S.No.1481/1996 filed by Patarla Laxman against Chedu Nagesh and others before the IV Addl.
Judge, CCC, Hyderabad, dated 06.11.1996.
Ex.A43Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2003-2004 – Form No.2D of the plaintiff along with the statement of assessable income Ex.A44Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2004-2005 – Form No.2D of the plaintiff along with the statement of assessable income Ex.A45Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2005-2006 – Form No.2D of the plaintiff Ex.A46Original Certificate of Registration issued by the Labour Department of Government of Telangana in the name of Sri Ambika Sound Ex.A47Income Tax Payment Counter Foil of Neelam Srinivas (husband of the plaintiff), dated 26.06.1998 Ex.A48Income Tax Payment Counter Foil of Neelam Srinivas (husband of the plaintiff), dated 25.07.2003 Ex.A49Sanction of Mortgage loan of Rs.2,00,000/- by the A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad dated 18.02.2008 Ex.A50No Due Certificate issued by the AP Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Monda Market Branch, Secunderabad dated 22.12.2011 Ex.A51Certified Copy of Order in W.P.No.15242/2011, dated 04.08.2011 filed by the plaintiff Ex.A52Income Tax Returns for the year, 2017-2018 of the plaintiff
dated 26.07.2017
Ex.A53Income Tax Returns for the year, 2022-2023 of the plaintiff
dated 29.07.2022
Ex.A54Trade License taken by plaintiff on Sri Ambika Sound, dated 03.01.2023 Ex.A55GST Registration Certificate dated 27.08.2021 Ex.A56Income Tax Returns filed by N. Srinivas for the year, 2023- 2024 dated 27.07.2023
Page Nos. 50 O.S.No.702 of 2013 IXACJ CCC Hyderabad
Ex.A57Income Tax receipt for the year, 2006-2007 of the plaintiff
dated 14.12.2007
Ex.A58Income Tax receipt for the year, 2007-2008 of the plaintiff
dated 14.12.2017
Ex.A59Income Tax receipt for the year, 2005-2006 of the plaintiff
dated 23.09.2005
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS:
Ex.B1 Wedding Card of the plaintiff Ex.B2 Annexure – I (Affidavit furnished by the candidate Neelam Srinivas (wife of the plaintiff) along with the nomination form
before the returning officer)
Ex.B3 Affidavit under Form 26 submitted by the candidate Neelam Srinivas before the returning officer Ex.B4 Bank Account Statement for the period from 01.03.2004 to 01.10.2005 issued by the Agroha Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Rikabgunj Branch, in the joint of name Sri Balaji Photo Studio.
Sd/-
IX Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad