IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
ADILABAD
Present: - Smt. M.G. Priyadarshini,
Principal District Judge, ADILABAD
WEDNESDAY THE 4 TH DAY OF MARCH 2020
O.S. NO. 40 OF 2014
Between:
1) Gaddam Sugunda Bai W/O. Asha Reddy, Age: 44 years, Occ: Household, R/O. Anandpur village, Jainath Mandal, Adilabad district
2) Nimmala Prathiba W/O. Navaneet Reddy, Age: 35 years, Occ: Household, R/O. Rampur village, Mandal and District: Adilabad
3) Baddam Lalitha W/O. Ram Reddy, age: 42 years, Occ: Household, R/O. Laxmipur village, Mandal: Jainath, Adilabad district
4) Loka Vijaya W/O. Dayakar, Age: 40 years, Occ: Household, R/O. H.No.3-1-217/18/5, Bhagyanagar, Adilabad … PLAINTIFFS AND
1) Yelti Lacha Reddy S/O. late Malla Reddy, age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/O. H.No.1- 61, Rampur village, Mandal and district: Adi- labad
2) Yelti Potha Reddy S/O. late Malla Reddy, Age: 38 years, Occ: Employee R/O. H.No.1- 139, Rampur village, Mandal and district: Adilabad
3) Yelti Lasum Bai W/O. late Malla Reddy, Age: 65 years, Occ: Household, R/O. Yenugu Pratap Reddy R/O. Anandpur village, Man- dal: Jainath, Adilabad district
4) Yelti Naresh Reddy S/O. Lacha Reddy, Age: 24 years, Occ: agriculture, R/O. Rampur vil- lage, Mandal and district: Adilabad
5) Bejjur Kishan S/O. Gangaram, Age: 36 years, Occ: Carpenter, R/O. Rampur village, Man- dal and district: Adilabad
6) Indur Bhudevi W/O. Ramesh, age: 38 years, Occ: Household, R/O. H.No.1-38, Rampur village, Mandal and district: Adilabad
O.S.No. 40 of 20142
On the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge, Adilabad
7) Durgam Shravanti W/O. Durgam Pithru, Age: 27 years, Occ: Household, R/O. H.No.3- 184, Rampur village,
8) Satish Narayan Reddy Yenguwar S/O. Narayan Reddy, Age: 27 years, Occ: Business R/O. Patan village, Taluka Kelapur, Yavat- mal district
9) Sujatha W/O. Sudershan Addiwar, Age: 33 years, Occ: Household, R/O. Patan village, Taluka Kelapur, Yavatmal district (MS) 10)Nomula Ramchander S/O. Mohan Reddy, Age: 40 years, Occ: agriculture, R/O. H.No.2- 47, Bahadurpur village, Jainath Mandal, Adi- labad district 11)Pundru Kishta Reddy S/O. Lacha Reddy, age: 38 years, Occ: agriculture, R/O. H.No.4- 5-388, Bhoktapur, Adilabad 12)Gopa Ramesh S/O. Anmaiah, Age: 43 years, Occ: agriculture, R/O. H.No.1-125, Rampur village, Mandal and district: Adilabad 13)Indur Sudhakar S/O. Kishtanna, Age: 22 years, Occ: agriculture, R/O. H.No.1-193, Rampur village, Mandal and district: Adil- abad 14)Paspula Ashok, S/O. Dattu, Age: 24 years, Occ: agriculture, R/O. H.No.1-202. Rampur village, Mandal and district: Adilabad 15)Indur Ramesh S/O. Lasmanna, age: 34 years, Occ: agriculture, R/O. Rampur village, Man- dal and district: Adilabad 16)Pasula Chinnaiah S/O. Santenna, Age: 34 years, Occ: agriculture, R/O. H.No.1-180, Rampur village, Mandal and district: Adil- abad 17)Aindla Mallaiah S/O. Kishtanna, Age: 40 years, Occ: agriculture, R/O. H.No.2-60, Lingi village, Mandal Talamadugu, Adilabad district 18)Yelti Mahender Reddy S/O. Naga Reddy, Age: 38 years, Occ: agriculture, R/O. Ram- pur village, Mandal and district: Adilabad 19)Godse Ajay Kumar S/O. Shankar Goud, Age: 39 years, Occ: agriculture, R/O. Rampur vil- lage, Mandal and district: Adilabad 20)Yenugu Pratap Reddy S/O. Shivanna, Age: 38 years, Occ: agriculture, R/O. Anandpur village, Mandal, Jainath Adilabad district (Defendants 5 to 20 are impleaded as per or- der dated 07.11.2017 in IA 1351 of 2015) … DEFENDANTS
O.S.No. 40 of 20143
On the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge, Adilabad
This Original Suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 17.02.2020 in the presence of Sri Narendra R. Choudary, Advocate for plaintiffs, while Sri A. Amarender Reddy, Advocate for defendants 1, 2 and 4, Sri A. Ashok, Advocate for defendant no.3, Sri T. Devender Singh, Advocate for defendants 5, 6, 8 to 17 and 19, and defendants 18 and 20 remained exparte and on hearing both sides and on perusal of material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1)This is a suit for partition of suit schedule A property consisting of lands bearing Sy.No.2/1/1 and 2/1/1/1 and houses bearing no.1-61 and 1-139 situated at Rampur village of Adilabad Mandal and schedule B property i.e., land bearing
Sy.No.105/అ/2 situated at Ponnari village of Tamsi Mandal of Adilabad district and to allot shares to the plaintiffs therein.
2)The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-
i) The plaintiffs are the sisters of defendants 1 and 2. Defendant no.3 is the mother of plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2. The deceased Yelti Malla Reddy is the father of plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 and husband of defendant no.3 and on 12.12.2013 he died intestate leaving behind him the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs and also to succeed the ancestral lands bearing
Sy.No.2/1/1 and house bearing no.1-139 and 1-61 situated at
Rampur village of Adilabad Mandal and district and also land bearing Sy.No.104 and Sy.No.105/అ situated at Ponnari village of
Tamsi Mandal of Adilabad district. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 constitute a Hindu undivided family. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 are coparceners and they are entitled to 8/49 share, while defendant no.3 is entitled to 1/49 share in the said ancestral properties.
O.S.No. 40 of 20144
On the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge, Adilabad ii) On 09.05.2012 the defendants 1 and 2 secretly sold away land bearing Sy.No.104 admeasuring Ac.0-15 guntas and Ac.1-20 guntas in Sy.No.105/అ/1 of Ponnari to one Rajeev Kumar Mittal for a consideration of Rs.8,44,000/- under Agreement for sale-cum-
General Power of Attorney vide no.3579/2012. On coming to know about the said sale, when the plaintiffs questioned the defendants 1 and 2, they promised to pay the share of plaintiffs therein. Later the defendants 1 and 2 got transferred Ac.1-15 guntas out of land bearing Sy.No.2/1/1 in the name of defendant no.4 behind the back of plaintiffs and on such sale the said land was assigned survey no.
2/1/1/1, while the remaining land in Sy.No. 105/అ/1 was assigned Sy.No.105/అ/2.
iii) The plaintiffs and defendants were in joint possession and enjoyment of suit schedule A and B properties, but in spite of several requests by the plaintiffs to partition the said properties and cash of Rs.8,44,000/- the defendants 1 and 2 avoided on one or the other pretext. As such the plaintiffs got issued legal notice on 18.06.2014, but the defendants got it returned. As such the plaintiffs filed this suit for partition of the suit schedule properties and for allotment of their share therein.
3) The defendants 1, 2 and 4 filed their written statement and the averments of the same, in brief, are as under:
i) The defendants admit the averments of plaint to the extent of relationship between them. The defendants submit that late Malla
O.S.No. 40 of 20145
On the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge, Adilabad
Reddy died leaving behind him the plaintiffs, defendants and also one Prathap Reddy as his legal heirs. The suit schedule A and B properties are not intestate ancestral properties of late Malla Reddy and out of the total extent of Ac.2-36 guntas of Sy.No.2/1/1, Malla
Reddy gifted Ac.1-20 guntas to defendant no.2 vide registered gift deed no.2782/2005 on 08.09.2005 and Ac.1-15½ guntas in favour of his grandson i.e., defendant no.4 vide another registered gift deed 2783 of 2005 dated 08.09.2005. During his life time, Malla Reddy also sold Ac.2-00 each in Sy.No.105 of Ponnari to one Srinivas S/O.
Sudhakar Chintawar and one Chilkuri Srinivas Reddy vide registered sale deed nos.516 of 1992 dated 20.04.1992 and 3518 of 2008 dated 18.06.2008. The houses bearing nos.1-61 and 1-139 situated at Rampur are the self acquired properties of defendants 1 and 2 respectively. Thus, the plaintiffs do not have any right of share in the suit schedule properties.
ii) The defendants deny the selling of land in Sy.No.104 to an extent of Ac.0-15 guntas and Ac.1-20 guntas in Sy.No.105/అ/1 to Rajiv
Kumar Mittal for Rs.8,44,000/- and their promising the plaintiffs to pay share therein as alleged by the plaintiffs. The defendants also deny the alleged transferring of Ac.1-15 guntas in Sy.No.2/1/1 in favour of defendant no.4, but they submit that as per the above said registered gift deeds, the revenue authorities mutated the names of defendants 1, 2 and 4 as owners of respective lands. The defendant no.2 purchased land in Sy.No.105 from Chilukuri Srinivas Reddy, who purchased it from late Malla Reddy as said above, under registered sale deed 4778 of 2008 dated 16.08.2008 and considering
O.S.No. 40 of 20146
On the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge, Adilabad this sale the revenue authorities allotted Sy.No.105/అ/2 to it and mutated in the name of defendant no.2. As such none of the suit schedule properties were the joint family properties as claimed by the plaintiffs and hence the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share therein by partition. The plaintiffs through their counsel Sri Mohd.
Ghouse got issued legal notice dated 01.07.2011 in the name of Yelti
Malla Reddy and defendants 1, 2 and 4 and on receipt of the same they all got issued reply to it through their advocate, but the plaintiff suppressed the same and also the facts therein.
iii) The defendants further submit that after getting title and possession of land in Sy.No.2/1/1, the defendant no.2 converted it into plots and sold some of it to defendants 5 to 9 and 19. Similarly, defendant no.4 converted his land in Sy.No.2/1/1/1, which was got by him under gift from his grandfather late Malla Reddy, converted it into plots and sold it to defendants 10 to 18 and also plaintiff no.1 under different registered sale deeds and put all of them into possession of their respective lands. The fact of plaintiff no.1 purchasing plot from defendant under sale deed no.1194 of 2009 on 23.03.2009 itself shows that the defendants 2 and 4 are the owners of the lands in Sy.No.2/1/1 and 2/1/1/1 of Rampur village by gift deeds and the said fact is well within the knowledge of plaintiffs.
iv) The defendants submit that Yelti Malla Reddy died leaving behind the plaintiffs, defendants and Pratap Reddy as his legal heirs and intestate property of land in Sy.No.54/A1/1 to an extent of
Ac.1-05, Sy.No.54/B1 admeasuring Ac.5-00 and Sy.No.54/B2
O.S.No. 40 of 20147
On the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge, Adilabad admeasuring Ac.4-00 situated at Bahadurpur village, but not the suit schedule properties as intestate properties as alleged by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs suppressing the same with intent to mislead the court filed this suit to grab the suit properties of defendants 2 and 4 and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.
4) The defendant no.3, who is the mother of plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2, filed her written statement and the averments of the same, in brief, are as under:
i) The defendant no.3 admits the relationship between them and also the death of her husband Malla Reddy leaving behind them as his heirs. She admits the defendants 1 and 2 selling Ac.2-00 of land from out of ancestral lands to Rajeev Mittal about two years back for Rs.8,40,000/- and their promising to give share therein to plaintiffs. The defendant no.3 also admits that she along with the plaintiffs have been in joint possession of suit schedule A and B properties and also entitled for share in the said properties and also in the cash of Rs.8,44,000/- and finally the defendant no.3 prays to decree the suit as prayed for by the plaintiffs.
5) At this stage, as per the orders dated 08.11.2018 in IA 1352 of 2015 filed by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs filed rejoinder to written statement of defendants 1, 2 and 4 and its brief averments are as follows:
i) The land bearing Sy.No.2/1/1, houses bearing nos.1-139 and 1-61 situated at Rampur and the lands bearing Sy.Nos.104 and 105/1 situated at Ponnari village are the ancestral properties of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4. The original survey number of land bearing
O.S.No. 40 of 20148
On the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge, Adilabad
Sy.No.2/A was Sy.No.2/A and the area was Ac.8-35 guntas. The paternal grandfather of plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 namely
Nago Rao was the pattedar of that land, he sold Ac.3-00 from out of it to one Dharma Reddy and about 25 years back there was an oral partition in between the father of plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 and their paternal uncle Yelti Ganga Reddy and paternal grandmother Ratna Bai, in which every one of them got Ac.1-96 cents each. The land fell to the share of the father of plaintiffs was assigned Sy.No.2/1/1. The father of plaintiffs was popularly known as Patna Malla Reddy. Ratna Bai gifted Ac.1-50 cents to
Ganga Reddy and Ac.0-46 cents to their father Malla Reddy and about five years back said Ratna Bai died. Thus, the total land held by their father was Ac.2-35 cents. The plaintiffs deny their father gifting any land to defendants 2 and 4 as stated by the defendants in their written statement. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of plaintiffs and defendants, the plaintiffs came to know about the gift through the written statement of defendants only and as the said gift is without their knowledge and consent, it is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs.
ii) The plaintiffs deny the conversion of lands by defendants 2 and 4 into plots and selling it to 17 persons including the plaintiff. About six years back the plaintiff no.1 went to defendants 2 and 4 for a sum of Rs.15,000/- to meet domestic and agriculture expenses, at that time they put a condition for executing document in their favour, thereupon at the request of defendants, she gave her ration card to them and then the defendants 2 and 4 took her to bus stand
O.S.No. 40 of 20149
On the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge, Adilabad area, where her photo was taken and later they took her to a building, in which her thumb impression and signatures were taken and then the defendants 2 and 4 paid the amount. The plaintiff no.1 is illiterate and she gave her ration card, photo and put her signatures and thumb impressions on good faith in defendants 2 and 4 and the contents of document were not read over to her and on through the contents of written statement she was shocked to know about the sale deed. The plaintiff no.1 never purchased the said plot from defendant no.1 and she had not paid Rs.16,000/- to him as consideration amount of that plot, but the defendants by playing fraud on plaintiff no.1 created the sale deed and the said document is a sham and bogus document.
iii) The plaintiffs also deny the sale of Ac.2-00 in Sy.No.105 to
Chilkuri Srinivas Reddy by Malla Reddy on 18.06.2008 under sale deed and also the defendant no.2 purchasing it from said Srinivas
Reddy on 16.08.2008. The defendant no.2 got incorporated his name in revenue records in collusion with the revenue authorities and the related entries in revenue records are false and bogus.
iv) The plaintiffs submit that though Prathap Reddy was also their sibling, but as he was given in adoption to Yenugu Gangu Bai about 30 years back, he is no more their coparcener. Yenugu Shivanna, who was the husband of Gangu Bai, was the owner of Ac.1-05 guntas in S.No.54/A1/1, Ac.5-00 in Sy.No.54/B1 and Ac.4-00 in
Sy.No.54/B2 situated at Bahadurpur village of Jainath Mandal.
After his death, his wife Yenugu Gangu Bai since adopted Prathap
O.S.No. 40 of 201410
On the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge, Adilabad
Reddy, he became the owner of the said properties and about 10 years back he sold land bearing Sy.No.54/B2 to one Addi Venkat
Reddy and from him the daughter of Prathap Reddy by name
Sagarika purchased it later. While this was so, Yenugu Prathap
Reddy gave the land in Sy.No.54/B1 in family settlement to his wife
Laxmi, as such it stands in her name and thus the plaintiffs or the defendants do not have any right in those lands and hence the plaintiffs prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.
6)On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues are framed for trial:-
1. Whether the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2, if so, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of the same as prayed for?
2. Whether one Prathap Reddy is also the legal heir of late Malla
Reddy, if so, whether the suit is bad for his non-joinder as necessary party to the suit as prayed for by the defendants?
3. To what relief?
7)During trial, PWs.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A.22 are marked on behalf of plaintiffs, while DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.32 and X.1 to X.6 were marked on behalf of defendants.
8)Heard both sides.
9)ISSUE No.1:-
a) A reading of the above rival contentions would show that there is no dispute between the parties with regard their relationship. The dispute is only
O.S.No. 40 of 201411
On the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge, Adilabad with regard to the partition of suit schedule properties. As per the plaintiffs, the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and as their father died intestate the same are liable for partition, but the defendants deny the same contending that the suit schedule properties are not intestate ancestral properties as the land in Sy.No.2/1/1 was gifted to defendants 2 and 4 and the land in Sy.No.105 was sold away by their father Malla Reddy himself during his life time and with regard to the houses shown in suit schedule A are their self acquired properties, as such the suit of plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.
b) As it is the plaintiffs who came up with this suit for partition claiming that the suit schedule properties are intestate ancestral properties, the burden of proof initially lies on them. In this pursuit, they must prove that the suit schedule properties are devolved upon their father by way of succession and that the same are undivided and continued to be in the joint possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs and defendants. Hence, let us now see whether the plaintiffs could first of all prove the devolvement of all suit schedule properties upon their father by way of succession. It is the plea of plaintiffs as well as the evidence of PW.1 in her chief examination that their paternal grandfather by name Nago Rao was the pattadar of Ac.8-35 guntas in Sy.no.2/A, out of it he sold away Ac.3-00 to one
Dharma Reddy and on partition of remaining Ac.5-35 guntas, their father Malla
Reddy, paternal uncle Ganga Reddy and grandmother Ratna Bai got Ac.1-96 cents each and subsequently her paternal grandmother Ratna Bai gave Ac.0-46 cents to their father and thus the total land held by their father was Ac.2-42 cents i.e., Ac.2-16 and odd guntas and the said land was assigned survey number as 2/1/1. Coming to her cross-examination she admitted that as per Exs.A.10 to
A.17 pahanies for the years 1984-85 to 1992-93 with intermittent gaps the patta of land in Sy.No.2/A to an extent of Ac.5-35 guntas of Rampur village stands jointly
O.S.No. 40 of 201412
On the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge, Adilabad in the names of Malla Reddy, Ganga Reddy and Rathna Bai and as per Ex.A.18 pahani for the year 1992-93 an extent of Ac.1-38 guntas and as per Exs.A.19 to
A.22 pahanies for the years 2005-06 to 2008-09 an extent of Ac.1-36 guntas in
Sy.No.2/1/1 was in the name of their father. She further stated that though she mentioned in the plaint schedule about Sy.No.2/1/1/1 measuring Ac.1-20 guntas and Ac.1-15 guntas, but she has not filed any document to show that the same stands in the name of their father and she has also not filed any document in proof of Rathna Bai giving Ac.0-18 guntas to their father. She also admitted that they have not filed any document to show that not only the remaining extent of land in Sy.No. 105/అ/2 but also the land of Ac.1-20 of Ponnari in
Sy.No.105/అ/2 stands in the name of their father. She admitted that they have not mentioned about schedule B property i.e., Sy.No.105/అ/2 either in their plaint or in her chief examination affidavit.
c) At the outset, the above admissions by PW.1 would show that plaintiffs have not filed any document to prove that their father had Ac.2-35 guntas in
Sy.No.2/1/1. Even though if we go through the above referred documents under
Exs.A.10 to A.22, as admitted by PW.1, Exs.A.10 to A.17 speak about the joint possession of Ac.5-35 guntas by the father, paternal uncle and paternal grandmother of plaintiffs only and coming to Exs.A.18 to A.22, they though relate to the father of plaintiffs alone but they show the land held by him in Sy.No.2/1/ 1 only that too for Ac.1-38¼ guntas or 1-36¼ guntas but not Ac.2-35 guntas as pleaded by plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have though filed some more documents as
Exs.A.1 to A.9, but its contents nowhere speak about the land held by the father of plaintiffs or the land devolved upon him from his father. Exs.A.1 and A.2 pahanies show the land held by the paternal grandfather of plaintiffs alone,
O.S.No. 40 of 201413
On the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge, Adilabad
Exs.A.3 to A.5 pahanies speak about the land held by defendants 2 and 4 in
Sy.Nos.2/1/1 and 105, Ex.A.6 is the agreement for sale-cum-GPA executed by defendants 2 and 4 with regard to sale of land in Sy.Nos.104 and 105 to one
Rajeev Kumar Mittal, Ex.A.7 is the notice issued by the plaintiffs to defendants 1 and 2 demanding them to partition the suit schedule properties and Exs.A.8 and
A.9 are the returned envelopes. The plaintiffs have not filed any other document to prove the devolvement of other suit schedule properties i.e., land in Sy.No.105 and the two houses on their father and on the other hand the categorical admission by PW.1 that during the life time of her father, defendants 2 and 4 sold away the land in Sy.No.104 and 105 to Rajiv Kumar Mittal under Ex.A.6 would further establish that the said lands were not their ancestral properties and they were never in joint possession of plaintiffs as claimed by them.
d) The plaintiffs have though examined one Shaikh Aminoddin as PW.2, his evidence is only about the adoption of Yenugu Prathap Reddy by Yenugu
Gangu Bai, but that also even could not be proved as PW.2 in his cross- examination admitted that he does not know the facts of this case and the reason for filing the suit and he had not acted as witness for any document pertaining to the said adoption of Prathap Reddy. Thus, it is apparent that the plaintiffs failed to adduce any substantial evidence to prove the devolvement of suit schedule properties upon their father from their grandfather. The plaintiffs have though filed Exs.A.18 to A.22, but as discussed above as they only relate to Sy.no.2/1/1 and as the extent of land shown therein is not in accordance with the claim of plaintiffs they are also of no use to the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs failed to prove the first and the foremost point of inheritance of suit schedule properties by their father from their grandfather. Consequently, the question of the father of plaintiffs becoming the owner of suit schedule properties by way of succession
O.S.No. 40 of 201414
On the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge, Adilabad and the suit schedule properties becoming the ancestral properties of plaintiffs and defendants does not arise.
e) It is the plea of defendants as well as their evidence through defendant no.1 as DW.1 that suit schedule properties are not intestate ancestral properties, during the lifetime of their father itself he gifted plots to the plaintiffs and some part of lands to defendants 2 and 4 and sold away some of the lands to others, but the plaintiffs deliberately suppressed all these facts and approached this court with unclean hands and as such the suit of plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. A perusal of the further cross-examination of PW.1 would show that the learned counsel for defendants confronted certified copies of gift deeds under Exs.B.29 to
B.32, which were marked through the evidence of DW.1 thereafter, to PW.1 and on going through the same she admitted the photographs therein as that of herself and of her sisters i.e., plaintiffs 2 to 4. The defendants also examined the
Senior Assistant of Sub Registrar Office, Adilabad as DW.2 and through her also got marked the above referred four gift deeds as Ex.X.3 to X.6. PW.1 though denied these documents, but she admitted their going to registration office along with their father, affixing their thump impressions on some papers there, and their father executing four gift deeds in their favour. A perusal of Ex.B.29 to B.32 would show that the father of plaintiffs gifted plots each one admeasuring 266.6 square yards situated at Rampur village to plaintiffs 1 to 4 out of love and affection towards them and the plaintiffs were also put in possession of their respective plots. PW.1 clearly admitted that she has not mentioned about these documents in her plaint or in her chief examination affidavit. She also stated that they have not filed any suit for cancellation of those gift deeds. It is also admitted by PW.1 that defendants 1, 2 and 4 gifted house plot to plaintiff no.2 and she
O.S.No. 40 of 201415
On the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge, Adilabad constructed a house therein under government scheme. Thus, all these facts prove the acceptance of the above gift deeds by the plaintiffs.
f) PW.1 further stated that she does not know whether her father executed gift deeds in favour of defendants 2 and 4 in respect of Sy.No.2 of Rampur village and in pursuance of the said gift deeds mutation is effected in revenue records in favour of defendants 2 and 4. The defendants got marked these two documents as Exs.B.1 and B.2 through the evidence of DW.1 and a perusal of it would show that on 08.09.20025 the father of plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 i.e., Malla
Reddy gifted Ac.1-20 guntas and Ac.1-15½ guntas in Sy.No.2/1/1 of Rampur village to defendants 2 and 4 respectively. PW.1 deposed that after filing written statement they came to know about the mutation in favour of defendants 2 and 4, but they have not taken any steps to file appeal before the Revenue authorities or
in the court to set aside those orders and to declare those mutations as null and
void. Here, it is pertinent to refer to Ex.B.19 sale deed got marked by defendants through DW.1 and they also got marked its replica as Ex.X.2 through the evidence of DW.2. A perusal of it would show that plaintiff no.1 has purchased an open plot of 1200 sft in Sy.no.2/1/1 from defendant no.4 for Rs.16,000/- and the contents of it would also clearly show that the defendant no.4 acquired title to that land by way of Ex.B.2 registered gift deed. In her cross-examination on this aspect, PW.1 has though denied her purchasing of plot in Sy.No.2/1/1 under
Ex.B.19 from defendant no.4, but the reason stated by her that when she went to defendant no.4 for loan of Rs.16,000/-, besides giving loan the defendant no.4 also executed Ex.B.19 in her favour is quite unnatural and unbelievable and hence the same is not accepted by this court. It is to note that if at all Ex.B.19 sale deed is sham and bogus as pleaded by PW.1, she would have sought for its cancellation but she admitted that she has not taken any such steps. Thus, in
O.S.No. 40 of 201416
On the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge, Adilabad view of the above and as it is also the settled principle of law that documentary evidence prevails over the oral evidence and the plaintiffs failed to rebut Ex.B.19 document, this court holds that Ex.B.19 stands proved. It being so, the question of plaintiffs not being aware of the gifting of land in Sy.No.2/1/1 by their father to defendants 2 and 4 under Exs.B.1 and B.2 and its mutation in revenue records till filing of written statement by defendants in this suit does not arise and thus the above evidence of PW.1 pleading ignorance of the above facts establishes to be false and hence it cannot be accepted. Consequently, the non-mentioning of these facts in their pleadings by plaintiffs till filing of written statement by defendants, would not only amount to suppression of facts but also establishes that the plaintiffs have approached the court with most unclean hands and on this ground also the suit of plaintiffs fails.
g) Here, it is the vehement contention of learned counsel for plaintiffs that as the gift of undivided interest in coparcenary property by coparcener to another coparcener is not valid unless the consent of other coparcener is taken and in this case as the plaintiffs have no knowledge about the gift of land to defendants 2 and 4 and also about the gift deeds executed in their favour, the above gift deeds executed by the father of plaintiffs are not valid and in this context he has relied upon the decision of our Hon’ble High Court in a case between Agina Chandra
Mouli (died) by LRs. Vs. Agina Varamma and another 1 . First of all it is to note that as discussed above, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are intestate ancestral properties and further a reading of the above case law would show that the father therein executed gift deed in favour of one of his two sons without the consent of the other, as such the said gift was held invalid, but in the case on hand the father of plaintiffs gifted plots to plaintiffs 1 2014 (6) ALD 430
O.S.No. 40 of 201417
On the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge, Adilabad also and as the plaintiffs have not sought for cancellation of the same thereafter and also for other reasons discussed above the gifts of plots to them is held accepted by the plaintiffs. Hence, there is no force in the contention of learned counsel for plaintiffs on this aspect and the same is not accepted. Thus, not prejudice to the above observation of this court that the plaintiffs failed to prove the devolvement of suit schedule properties upon their father by succession, if we accept the case of plaintiffs for a moment as true for arguments sake, even then the above facts of gifting plots to plaintiffs and lands to defendants 2 and 4 in
Sy.No.2/1/1 proves that the said suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.2/1/1 was already partitioned and was never in joint possession of plaintiffs and defendants as claimed by the plaintiffs.
h) PW.1 further deposed that on 01.07.2011 they got issued legal notice through their counsel to defendants 1, 2, 4 and one Deepak Thate i.e., during the life time of their father, but she again says that the said notice was not issued during the life time of her father. This notice was got marked as Ex.B.6 through the evidence of DW.1 and a perusal of it would show that the plaintiffs got issued that notice to their father Malla Reddy also including defendants 1, 2, 4 and one
Deepak Tate in regard to the land bearing Sy.No.2/1/1 of Ac.1-91 cents and
Sy.No.105 of Ac.5-00 both situated at Rampur village demanding partition of the same and to allot their share therein. It is to note that in this notice, the plaintiffs have not whispered anything about the other suit schedule properties i.e., houses and the land in Sy.No.104, but they only sought for partition Ac.1-91 in Sy.No.2/1 /1 and Ac.5-00 in Sy.No.105. Thus, the non-mentioning of two suit schedule houses in that notice would lead to a doubt on the suit claim of plaintiffs. With regard to the other two properties mentioned in that notice, the extents shown therein were Ac.1-91 cents in Sy.No.2/1/1 and Ac.5-00 in Sy.No.105, but coming
O.S.No. 40 of 201418
On the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge, Adilabad to this suit, the plaintiffs claimed the extents as Ac.2-35 guntas in Sy.No.2/1/1 and Ac.1-20 guntas in Sy.No.105. There is no explanation on this variation from the plaintiffs and further as admitted by PW.1 the plaintiffs have not mentioned about the issuance of this notice in their plaint. As such the same would also lead to a suspicion on the claim of plaintiffs. It is also to note that as the said notice was issued to the father of the plaintiffs also including the defendants, he along with his sons got issued reply under Ex.B.7 to plaintiffs stating that the properties referred in Ex.B.6 notice are not ancestral and inherited properties and as such the plaintiffs were never in joint possession of the properties and hence the plaintiffs are not entitled for any partition. If at all the plaintiffs have any right in the properties mentioned therein, their father would not have denied it in his reply.
Thus, this assertion by the father of plaintiffs would also disprove the right of plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties.
i) As per the defendants, their father sold away Ac.2-00 land in Sy.No.105 to one Srinivas S/O. Sudhakar on 20.04.1992 and Ac.2-00 more land to Chilkuri
Srinivas Reddy on 18.06.2008 under Ex.B.3 and B.4 registered sale deeds and in turn the defendant no.2 purchased Ac.2-00 of land in Sy.No.105 from Chilkuri
Srinivas Reddy under Ex.B.5 sale deed. A perusal of these documents would establish the same as they are neither rebutted nor disproved by the plaintiffs. In this regard the learned counsel for plaintiffs argued that the father of plaintiffs being kartha of suit schedule property, which is ancestral joint family property, he cannot sell those properties except for legal necessity of his family, but as there is no such necessity for him, the sale by him under Exs.B.3 and B.4 and the consequent sales under Exs.B.10 to B.17 by defendants are null and void and in this context he relied upon the decisions of our Hon’ble High Court in cases
O.S.No. 40 of 201419
On the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge, Adilabad between Bijjur Narasa Reddy and others Vs. Ramulu and others 2 and Nagamma and others Vs. G. Kamalamma and others 3 . The learned counsel for defendants rebutted this argument contending that first of all the property sold under Exs.B.3 and B.4 is not ancestral property and it is the exclusive property of the father of plaintiffs and defendants and even otherwise the contents of the sale deeds would show that the sale was made in order to meet the day to day expenses of the family and the plaintiffs have also not adduced any contra evidence and as such the said sale cannot be questioned by the plaintiffs and in support of his contention he relied upon the decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case between Kehar Singh (D) thr. LRs. And others Vs. Nachittar Kaur and others 4 .
It is to note that as already held above the plaintiffs failed to adduce any evidence much less even a single piece of paper to show that the property sold by their father under Exs.B.3 and B.4 is inherited by their father from their grandfather and thereby failed to show that it is their ancestral property, as such, the plaintiffs cannot question the said sale. Secondly as submitted by the learned counsel for defendants the contents of Exs.B.3 and B.4 would show that the sale was made in order to meet the day to day expenses and the plaintiffs failed to controvert the same by any evidence and furthermore as the said sales happened long back in the year 1992 and 2008, after lapse of several years, nothing more can be expected from the purchases of those properties on this aspect. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for plaintiffs on this aspect also fails.
j) It is the contention of defendants that Yenugu Prathap Reddy is also their sibling but the plaintiffs have deliberately not shown him as party to this suit and when cross-examined PW.1 on this aspect, she admitted that Prathap Reddy is 2 1999 (6) ALD 157 3 2008 (2) ALD 794 (DB) 4 2018 (5) ALD 179 (SC)
O.S.No. 40 of 201420
On the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge, Adilabad also their brother but they have not shown him initially as party to this suit as he went in adoption but after filing of written statement they impleaded him. She admitted that they have not mentioned in their plaint that Prathap Reddy went in adoption and they have also not filed any document in proof of the adoption. She also admitted that her paternal grandmother Rathna Bai was the only legal heir of her parents Gangu Bai and Shivanna and they both have Ac.13-00 in Sy.No.54 and one house at Bahadurpur and as they died intestate, being the sole legal heir
Rathna Bai has got right over that entire property and that after the death of
Rathna Bai, their father Malla Reddy has right to succeed the said property. She admitted that Gangu Bai or her husband Shivanna or their daughter Rathna Bai had not executed any will bequeathing the property. PW.1 admitted that they did not mention about the said property in their plaint or in the schedule and also in her evidence. In view of this evidence of PW.1, the father of plaintiffs would also have succeeded the Ac.13-00 in Sy.No.54 and one house at Bahadarpur, but the plaintiffs have not whispered anything on this aspect and they have also not sought for partition of these properties. Thus, the above evidence of PW.1 would further establishes that the plaintiffs have suppressed several facts and approached this court with unclean hands.
k) Thus, the above discussion would amply establish that the plaintiffs not only failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are their ancestral and joint family properties, but also approached this court with unclean hands by suppressing material facts discussed above and thus this court holds that the plaintiffs are not entitled for partition of the suit schedule properties as prayed for by them. Issue no.1 is answered accordingly.
10) ISSUE No.2:
O.S.No. 40 of 201421
On the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge, Adilabad
The defendants have pleaded that Yenugu Prathap Reddy, who is subsequently impleaded as defendant no.20 by the plaintiffs by way of amendment of plaint, is also the legal heir of their father, but as he is not made as party to this suit, the suit is bad for his non-joinder. As per the above referred evidence of PW.1, though she admits that Yenugu Prathap Reddy is also their real brother, but they have not shown him initially as party to this suit as he went in adoption to Yenugu Gangu Bai, who is their maternal grandmother about 35 years back. In her cross-examination PW.1 admitted that she has not filed any adoption deed in proof of adoption of Yenugu Prathap Reddy. However, a perusal of Ex.B.26 to B.28 certified copies of pahanies would show the name of father of defendant no.20 Prathap Reddy as Shivanna, who is the husband of
Gangu Bai, which suggests that the said Prathap Reddy was given in adoption to them. The evidence on record would show that the defendants have also not stressed upon this point any further. Even otherwise, in view of the finding on issue no.1 that the plaintiffs failed to prove their case of partition itself and as the said Prathap Reddy is though subsequently added as defendant no.20 in this suit but has not contested the suit and simply remained exparte, this issue becomes insignificant. Issue no.2 is answered accordingly.
11)ISSUE NO.3:-
IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed. No costs.
Typed by the stenographer to my dictation and after correction
pronounced by me in open court on this the 4th day of March 2020.
PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE
ADILABAD
O.S.No. 40 of 201422
On the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge, Adilabad
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS
PW.1Gaddam Sugunda BaiDW.1: Yelti Potha Reddy
PW.2Shaik AminoddinDW.2: Ch. Kavitha – Sr. Asst.,
EXHIBITS MARKED
Certified copy of pahani for Certified copy of gift deed Ex.A.1 Ex.B.1 the year 1980-81No.2782 of 2005 Certified copy of pahani fir Certified copy of gift deed Ex.A.2Ex.B.2 the year 1982-83No.2783 of 2005 Certified copy of pahani for Certified copy of sale deed Ex.A.3Ex.B.3 the year 2014No.516 of 1992 Certified copy of pahani for Certified copy of sale deed Ex.A.4Ex.B.4 the year 2014No.3518 of 2005 Certified copy of pahani for Certified copy of sale deed Ex.A.5Ex.B.5 the year 2014No.4778 of 2008 Certified copy of agreement Ex.A.6Ex.B.6Served legal notice for sale-cum-GPA dt.9.5.12 Office copy of reply notice Ex.A.7Notice dated 18.06.2014Ex.B.7
dated 01.07.2011
Returned envelope dated Postal receipt of reply notice Ex.A.8Ex.B.8 19.06.2014dt.19.07.2011 Returned envelope dated Served acknowledgement of Ex.A.9Ex.B.9 19.06.2014reply dated 19.07.2011 Certified copy of pahani for Certified copy of sale deed Ex.A.10Ex.B.10 1984-85No.3147 of 2013 of D.5 Certified copy of pahani for Certified copy of sale deed Ex.A.11Ex.B.11 1986-87No.3806 of 2013 of D.6 Certified copy of pahani for Certified copy of sale deed Ex.A.12Ex.B.12 1987-88No.5107 of 2013 of D.7 Certified copy of pahani for Certified copy of sale deed Ex.A.13Ex.B.13 1988-89No.1310 of 2014 of D.8 Certified copy of pahani for Certified copy of sale deed Ex.A.14Ex.B.14 1989-90No.1311 of 2014 of D.9 Certified copy of pahani for Certified copy of sale deed Ex.A.15Ex.B.15 1990-91No.2259 of 2014 of D.6 Certified copy of pahani for Certified copy of sale deed Ex.A.16Ex.B.16 1991-92No.2803 of 2005 of D.18 Certified copy of pahani for Certified copy of sale deed Ex.A.17Ex.B.17 1992-93No.732 of 2009 of D.10 Certified copy of pahani for Certified copy of sale deed Ex.A.18Ex.B.18 1992-93No.733 of 2009 of D.11 Certified copy of sale deed Certified copy of pahani for Ex.A.19Ex.B.19No.1194 of 2009 of plaintiff 2005-06 no.1 Certified copy of pahani for Certified copy of sale deed Ex.A.20Ex.B.20 2006-07No.6242 of 2011 of D.12
O.S.No. 40 of 201423
On the file of the Prl. Dist. Judge, Adilabad
Certified copy of pahani for Certified copy of sale deed Ex.A.21Ex.B.21 2007-08No.1086 of 2013 of D.13 Certified copy of pahani for Certified copy of sale deed Ex.A.22Ex.B.22 2008-09No.1087 of 2013 of D.14 Certified copy of sale deed Ex.B.23 No.1088 of 2013 of D.15 Certified copy of sale deed Ex.B.24 No.1089 of 2013 of D.16 Certified copy of sale deed Ex.B.25 No.1090 of 2013 of D.17 Certified copy of pahani for Ex.B.26Fasli 1424 (2014) of Sy.No.54/A1/1 Certified copy of pahani for Ex.B.27Fasli 1424 (2014) of Sy.No.54/B1 Certified copy of pahani for Ex.B.28Fasli 1424 (2014) of Sy.No.54/B2 Certified copy of gift deed Ex.B.29No.527 of 2005 of plaintiff no.2 Certified copy of gift deed Ex.B.30no.528 of 2005 of plaintiff no.4 Certified copy of gift deed Ex.B.31no.529 of 2005 of plaintiff no.3 Certified copy of gift deed Ex.B.32no.530 of 2005 of plaintiff no.1
X – SERIES
Ex.X.1: Authorization letter
Ex.X.2: Certified copy of sale deed No.1194 of 2009
Ex.X.3: Certified copy of gift deed No.527 of 2005
Ex.X.4: Certified copy of gift deed No.528 of 2005
Ex.X.5: Certified copy of gift deed No.529 of 2005
Ex.X.6: Certified copy of gift deed No.530 of 2005
PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE
ADILABAD