1
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
WEST GODAVARI AT ELURU.
PRESENT: Dr.M.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU I Additional District Judge
Wednesday, this the 15th of April, 2026
A.S No.89/2017 and A.S No.1/2019
Between:
A.S No.89/2017
Maddu Mehar Kumar Lakshmi Tayaru ---Appellant/D9.
Vs
1. Kaki Mutyalu
2. Kaki Mehar Krishna
3. Kaki Sandhya Rani
4. Kaki Sravanthi
5. Kaki Krishna Rao
6. Kaki Sriramachandra Murthy
7. Setti Venkateswara Rao
8. Yenduri Sita Ratnam (died)
9. Chakka Lalitha Kumari
10. Chakka Kanaka Lakshmi Kumari (died)
11. Chinnam Naga Lakshmi
12. Chakka Satyanarayana
13. Chakka Siva Ramakrishna
14. Chakka Satya Sai
15. Chakka Niraja ---Respondents/Plaintiff/ Defendant Nos.1 to 8 and 10.
Defendants 3 and 4 being minors re. By their mother 2nd defendant Smt. Kaki Sandhya Rani.
The 5th Defendant is added as per orders dated 22.06.2024 on I.A No.431/2004 filed by the 1st defendant.
2 The 6th Defendant is added as per orders dated 18.10.2004 in I.A No.2779/2004.
The Defendants 7 to 10 added as per Orders dt.22.10.2007 on I.A No.233/2007.
The name of the 9th defendant / Appellant is amended as per orders dated 14.06.2007 in I.A No.1951/2007.
(Respondent No.11 was added as LR of the deceased 8th Respondent, as per the orders in I.A No.150/2024 dated 04.04.2024) (Respondents 12 to 15 were added as LR of the deceased 10th Respondent, as per the Orders in I.A No.150/2024 dated 04.04.2024.)
On appeal against the judgment and decree dated 01-06-2017 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru in O.S.No.221/2002 and made in:
Between:
Kaki Mutyalu ---Plaintiff.
Vs
1. Kaki Mehar Krishna
2. Kaki Sandhya Rani
3. Kaki Sravanthi
4. Kaki Krishna Rao
5. Kaki Sriramachandra Murthy
6. Setti Venkateswara Rao
7. Yenduri Sita Ratnam
8. Chakka Lalitha Kumari
9. Chakka Kanaka Lakshmi Kumari
10. Maddula Mehar Kumari Lakshmi Thayaru --- Defendants.
A.S No.1/2019
Between:
1. Kaki Sandhya Rani
2. Kaki Sravathi
3. Kaki Krishna Rao ---Appellants/ Defendants 2 to 4.
Vs
3
1. Kaki Mutyala ---Respondent/ Plaintiff.
2. Kaki Meher Krishna
3. Kaki Sriramachandra Murthy
4. Setti Venkateswara Rao
5. Yenduri Sita Ratnam (Died)
6. Chakka Lalitha Kumari
7. Maddu Meher Kumari Lakshmi Thayaru
8. Chakka Kanaka Lakshmi Kumari (Died)
9. Chinnam Naga Lakshmi
10. Chakka Satyanarayana
11. Chakka Siva Ramakrishna
12. Chakka Satya Sai
13. Chenna Niraja
(Respondents 10 to 13 are added as per Orders in I.A No.3/2023 in A.S
No.1/2019 dated 18.04.2023) ---Respondents/ Defendants 1, 5 to 10.
On appeal against the judgment and decree dated 01-06-2017 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru in O.S.No.221/2002 and made in:
Between:
1. Kaki Sandhya Rani.
2. Kaki Sravathi.
3. Kaki Krishna Rao. ---Appellant/Defendants 2 to 4..
Vs
1. Kaki Mutyala --- Respondent / Plaintiff
2. Kaki Meher Krishna.
3. Kaki Sriramachandra Murthy.
4. Setti Venkateswara Rao.
5. Yenduri Sita Ratnam.
6. Chakka Lalitha Kumari.
4
7. Maddu Meher Kumari Lakshmi Thayaru.
8. Chakka Kanaka Lakshmi Kumari.
--- Respondents/Defendants 1, 5 to 10.
These appeals are coming on 12-12-2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Bhaskara Narasimha Murthy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri S.V.R.Gandhi, learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent, Sri.
E.Srinivasa Babu, learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent; Sri G.V.Anand
Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondents 3 to 5; and the respondents 6 to 15 remained exparte in A.S No.89/2017; and Sri G.V.Anand Kumar, learned
Counsel for the appellant; Sri S.V.R.Gandhi, learned counsel for the 1st respondent; Sri E.Srinivasa Babu, Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent,
Respondents 3 and 8 are abated; Sri B.Gowri Shankar, Learned Counsel for 4th respondent; Sri P.B.Narasimha Murthy, Learned counsel for Respondents 7 and 9, Respondents 10 to 13 remained exparte in A.S No.1/2019; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
These appeals arise from the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2019 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge in O.S. No.133/2009. Appeal No.
A.S. 89/2017 has been preferred by Defendant No.9, while Appeal No. A.S.
1/2019 has been preferred by Defendants 2 to 4. As all these appeals emanate from the same judgment and decree and involve identical facts and contentions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to by their original designations before the trial court.
2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
(i) The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking partition of the plaint schedule 5 properties. Specifically, he sought partition of Items 1 to 3 into three equal shares and allotment of one such share to himself. Likewise, he sought partition of Items 4 to 10 into four equal shares and allotment of one such share to himself.
(a) The Plaintiff's Case
The plaintiff's case, in brief, is as follows: The plaintiff, the 1st defendant, the 5th defendant, and the late Kaki Ramakrishna are the sons of Kaki Krishna
Rao. The 2nd defendant is the widow, the 3rd defendant is the daughter, and the 4th defendant is the son of his deceased brother, Kaki Ramakrishna. The schedule properties, located at Eluru, are jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiff and his brothers.
The plaintiff and his brothers effected a partition through a registered partition deed dated 25.08.1993. Under this deed, the 'A' schedule properties, comprising three items (described as Items 1 to 3 in the plaint schedule), were allotted to the joint share of the plaintiff, the 1st defendant, and the late Kaki
Ramakrishna. The 'B' schedule property was allotted exclusively to the share of the 5th defendant.
Following the death of his brother Kaki Ramakrishna, his 1/3rd share in Items 1 to 3 devolved upon Defendants 2 to 4 (his widow and children). Although
Items 1 to 3 constitute a vacant site, Kaki Ramakrishna had constructed a shop on the south-western corner and was carrying on his business there.
After his demise, Defendants 2 to 4 have continued that business.
Upon learning that the 2nd defendant was attempting to alienate the properties for her personal enrichment, and finding the continued joint ownership of the properties no longer conducive to his interest, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to Defendants 1 and 2 calling for the partition of Items 1 to 3. In response, Defendants 1 and 2 sent independent replies containing false allegations.
6 In her reply notice, the 2nd defendant falsely alleged that a house property on the western street in Eluru was sold to the tenant on 30.08.1977 for
Rs.1,30,000/-, that the sale proceeds were placed in a fixed deposit in the plaintiff's name, and that the plaintiff appropriated this amount in lieu of his share in Items 1 to 3. In reality, the said house was sold for Rs.70,000/-, which was equally distributed among all sharers.
The plaintiff further alleged that the 6th defendant, in collusion with
Defendants 2 to 4, procured two sale deeds as if he had purchased the property from them. These sale deeds executed by Defendants 2 to 4 are not valid or binding. Defendants 7 to 10 are the sisters of the plaintiff, the 1st defendant, the 5th defendant, and the late Kaki Ramakrishna. As per family arrangements and mutual understanding, they have no claim or share in the schedule properties, having been provided with cash, gold, silver, utensils, and other valuables at the time of their marriages. Consequently, they consented to the partition of the plaint schedule properties among the four brothers.
The partition deed dated 25.08.1993, being a partial and unequal partition and distribution of family properties, is not valid and is also not binding on
Defendants 7 to 10. Accordingly, the plaintiff contended that Items 1 to 10 of the schedule properties are liable to be partitioned among himself, Defendants 1, 5, and 7 to 10.
(b) Contention of the 1st Defendant
The 1st defendant filed a written statement contending that the joint family properties were managed by the plaintiff, who never rendered accounts of the income derived from those assets. A loan exists over the landed properties with the Cooperative Society, Chintalapudi. In addition to the properties shown in the plaint schedule, the joint family also possessed Ac.6.56 cents and a tiled house standing in the father's name, as well as another extent of Ac.3.19 cents and a site measuring Ac.0.10¼ cents at Chintalapudi. The 1st defendant stated that he has no objection to the partition of the joint family properties.
7
(c) Contention of Defendants 2 to 4
Defendants 2 to 4 (the principal contesting defendants) filed two common written statements, the first on 18.07.2003 and the second on 18.01.2005.
They contended that the late Ramakrishna, during his lifetime, managed the entire joint family properties and developed them from his earnings. He also filed several eviction suits against occupants of the schedule properties. The plaintiff, who resided in Hyderabad, never attended to the joint family properties.
Beyond the plaint schedule properties, the joint family possessed other properties, a fact intentionally suppressed by the plaintiff for wrongful gain.
One of the joint family assets, a property situated on Western Street, was sold to the tenant on 30.08.1997 for Rs.1,30,000/-. As the plaintiff was the eldest brother, the sale proceeds were deposited into his account with the State
Bank of India, Station Road Branch, Eluru. The plaintiff withdrew this amount in lieu of his share in Items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties and is therefore not entitled to claim any share in those items.
With respect to Items 5 to 7, they were mortgaged to the Society Bank by deposit of title deeds to secure a loan for digging a borewell. Kaki
Ramakrishna died on 03.08.2001. Since then, the plaintiff, the 1st defendant, the 4th defendant, and the 5th defendant have been enjoying the yield from those properties without making any payment to the bank authorities towards the outstanding loan. Consequently, they are liable to render accounts for the yield realized from Items 5 to 7 and to discharge the loan obtained for digging the borewell.
(d). Contention of the 5th Defendant
The 5th defendant filed a separate written statement contending that he is in separate and exclusive possession of the property allotted to his share under the registered partition deed dated 25.08.1993. Item No.7 is not a joint family property, and the plaintiff is not entitled to seek its partition. The 5th defendant claims a 1/4th share in the sale proceeds of Rs.1,30,000/-, which amount was 8 appropriated by the plaintiff without providing him any share. It is incorrect to state that the plaintiff relinquished his share in Items 1 to 3 in consideration of receiving Rs.1,30,000/-. Therefore, the suit should be decreed by granting the 5th defendant a 1/4th share in Items 4, 5, 6, and 8, as well as in the sale proceeds of Rs.1,30,000/-, along with interest.
(e) Contention of the 6th Defendant
The 6th defendant contends that he purchased an extent of 113 square yards of site situated in T.S. Nos. 745, 746, 1086, and 1087 of Eluru town from
Defendants 2 to 4 under a registered sale deed dated 24.09.2004 for a valuable consideration of Rs.5,65,000/-. On the same day, he also purchased another extent of 205 square yards in the same survey numbers from
Defendants 2 to 4 for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. He has been in possession and enjoyment of these properties since the dates of their purchase.
Defendants 2 to 4 sold these properties by representing that they had fallen to the share of the late Kaki Ramakrishna in the partition between him and his brothers, and that they were in exclusive possession as his legal representatives. The 6th defendant, being a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration, is entitled to equitable treatment by allotting the property sold to him to the share of Defendants 2 to 4. He is not concerned with the remaining properties.
(f) Contention of the 9th Defendant
The 9th defendant contends that the details of the properties mentioned in the plaint are incorrect. There is suppression of facts, as not all family properties have been disclosed. Her marriage took place in the year 1984. The plaintiff's assertion that she and her sisters were given cash, gold, etc., at the time of their marriage in lieu of their share in the joint family properties is absolutely false. All the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties, and the 9th defendant is entitled to a 1/7th share in all family properties, including the plaint schedule properties, under the amended provisions of the Hindu 9 Succession Act.
The plaintiff, fully aware that the 9th defendant and other defendants are entitled to a share in all joint family properties by birth, intentionally suppressed this fact. The alienation made by Defendants 2 to 4 is not binding on her. The plaintiff is not entitled to seek any partition of the family properties, as he had already taken away Rs.1,30,000/- (being the sale proceeds from the house on Western Street) in lieu of his share in the family properties.
(g) Contention of the 10th Defendant
The 10th defendant contends that Items 1 to 10 of the plaint schedule are ancestral properties in which all sons and daughters of late Kaki Krishna Rao have equal shares. Therefore, she and her sisters (D7 to D9) possess a share in the schedule properties equal to that of their brothers. The alleged partition deed dated 25.08.1993 is not true or genuine and never took place between her brothers. The plaintiff has filed this suit with unclean hands by suppressing facts.
(ii) PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT
(a). Issues Framed
Based on the rival contentions, the trial court framed the following issues and
additional issues for trial:
Issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition of the plaint schedule property into three equal shares and allotment of one such share to him?
2. To what relief?
(b) Evidence Adduced
During the trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exhibits
A.1 to A.10. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined, but no documentary evidence was adduced.
10
(c) First Judgment and Remand
After considering the evidence adduced by both sides, the trial court partly decreed the suit by its judgment dated 12.09.2008. It ordered partition of Items 1 to 3 into three equal shares, allotting one share each to the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, while Defendants 2 to 4 collectively were allotted one share.
Similarly, Items 4 to 8 were ordered to be partitioned into four equal shares, with the plaintiff, the 1st defendant, Defendants 2 to 4 collectively, and the 5th defendant each receiving a 1/4th share. The suit was dismissed in respect of
Items 9 and 10.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, Defendants 2 to 4 filed A.S.
No.13/2009, and Defendants 7 to 10 filed A.S. No.231/2010. Both appeals were allowed by the learned V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court),
Eluru, by a common judgment dated 30.04.2013. The judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court with directions to receive the written statements of Defendants 7 to 10 and to decide all issues afresh in accordance with law, granting fair opportunities to both sides to adduce additional evidence.
(d) Proceedings After Remand
Following remand, Defendants 7 to 10, who had not previously filed written statements, filed their written statements and contested the suit. An additional issue was framed after Defendants 7 to 10 filed their written statements. The same is set out below:
“Whether D7 to D10 are entitled to a 1/7th share in the plaint schedule properties under the amended provisions of the Hindu Succession Act?”
The 9th defendant was examined as DW.3 and the 10th defendant as DW.4.
However, no documentary evidence was adduced by Defendants 7 to 10.
After considering the evidence adduced by both sides, the trial court again partly decreed the suit by passing a preliminary decree. It partitioned Items 1 to 3 into three equal shares, allotting one such share each to the plaintiff, the 11 1st defendant, and Defendants 2 to 4 collectively. Items 4 to 8 were partitioned into eight equal shares, with the plaintiff, the 1st defendant, Defendants 2 to 4 collectively, D5, and D7 to D10 each being allotted a 1/8th share. The suit was dismissed in respect of Items 9 to 12.
(iii) The Present Appeals
Aggrieved by the said judgment, Defendants 2 to 4 filed A.S. No.1/2019, and the 9th defendant filed A.S. No.89/2017.
3. SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL
The learned counsel for Defendants 2 to 4 argued that the plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence demonstrating that he distributed the sale proceeds of the tiled house among the other sharers. Ignoring this fact, the trial court erroneously proceeded to partition both Items 1 to 3 and Items 4 to 8.
The learned counsel for the 9th defendant argued that all the schedule properties are joint family properties. However, the trial court erroneously failed to grant any share to Defendants 7 to 10 in Items 1 to 3, which are also joint family properties. The court further erred in failing to appreciate that
Defendants 7 to 10 were not parties to the partition deed marked as Ex.A.1, which is therefore not binding upon them.
4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
In light of the rival contentions, the following points arise for determination:
1. Whether the schedule properties constitute the joint family properties of the plaintiff, Defendants 1 to 5, and Defendants 7 to 10?
2. Whether the registered partition deed dated 25.08.1993 is true, valid, and binding on Defendants 7 to 10?
3. Whether the plaintiff and D1 received a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- in lieu of their share in Items 1 to 3, as contended by D2 to D4?
4. Whether the applications filed by the parties in I.A. No.881/2025, I.A.
No.883/2021, I.A. No.319/2023, and I.A. No.435/2025 for receiving
additional evidence can be allowed?
12
5. Whether the application filed by Defendants 2 to 4 in I.A. No.468/2023 seeking permission to amend their written statement deserves to be allowed?
6. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial court can be sustained?
7. To what relief?
5. DISCUSSION ON POINTS 1 TO 3 AND 6
Relationship and Nature of Properties 5.1 The relationship between the parties is undisputed. Admittedly, the plaintiff, the 1st defendant, late Kaki Ramakrishna, and the 5th defendant are the sons, and Defendants 7 to 10 are the daughters, of one Kaki Krishna Rao.
The 2nd defendant is the widow, the 3rd defendant is the daughter, and the 4th defendant is the son of late Kaki Ramakrishna. The 6th defendant is the purchaser of a portion of Items 1 to 3 from Defendants 2 to 4.
5.2 It is also an undisputed fact that Kaki Krishna Rao, the patriarch of the family (excluding the 6th defendant), died in the year 1982.
5.3 Originally, the suit was filed by the plaintiff against Defendants 1 to 4 seeking partition of Items 1 to 3 into three equal shares among himself, the 1st defendant, and Defendants 2 to 4 (representing the 1/3rd share of
Ramakrishna). Subsequently, the 1st defendant filed I.A. No.431/2003 to implead the 5th defendant, which was allowed on 22.06.2004. The 6th defendant was impleaded pursuant to the plaintiff's application in I.A.
No.2779/2004. Defendants 7 to 10 were impleaded as per the orders in I.A.
No.233/2007 (filed by the plaintiff).
5.4 Items 4 to 10 were added to the plaint schedule as per the orders in I.A.
No.202/2004 (filed by the 1st defendant). Similarly, Items 11 and 12 were added as per the orders in I.A. No.2149/2014 (filed by the 1st defendant). It is pertinent to note that Items 11 and 12 are identical to Items 9 and 10; the same properties have been inadvertently shown twice in the plaint schedule.
13 Therefore, any reference to Items 9 and 10 shall be construed as referring to
Items 11 and 12.
5.5 The nature of the schedule properties is not in dispute. It is an undisputed fact that all the schedule properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff and his siblings (D1, Kaki Ramakrishna, D5, and D7 to D10). This fact is evident from the pleadings of the parties. Except for the 5th defendant, none of the other defendants, including Defendants 2 to 4, raised any specific plea that the schedule properties are not joint family properties. The 5th defendant claimed that Item No.7 is not a joint family property, but his written statement offers no reasons in support, and no evidence was adduced on this aspect during trial. Thus, it is pellucid that all parties are ad idem that the schedule properties constitute the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants (excluding the 6th defendant).
The Partition Deed (Ex.A.1) 5.6 Regarding Items 1 to 3, 9, and 10, the plaintiff asserts that he and his brothers (D1, late Kaki Ramakrishna, and D5) effected a partition under the registered partition deed dated 25.08.1993 (Ex.A.1). Under this partition, Items 9 and 10 were allotted to the share of the 5th defendant, while Items 1 to 3 were allotted to the joint share of the plaintiff, the 1st defendant, and late Kaki
Ramakrishna (husband of the 2nd defendant). Consequently, the plaintiff sought partition of Items 1 to 3 into three equal shares and allotment of one such share to himself.
Defendants 2 to 4's Contention Regarding Rs.1,30,000/- 5.7 This claim is principally contested by Defendants 2 to 4. According to them, one of the joint family assets situated on Western Street was sold to the tenant on 30.08.1997 for Rs.1,30,000/-. As the plaintiff was the eldest brother, the sale proceeds were deposited into his account at the State Bank of India,
Station Road Branch, Eluru. The plaintiff subsequently withdrew this amount in lieu of his share in Items 1 to 3 and is therefore not entitled to claim any share in those items.
14 5.8 The burden of proof rests on Defendants 2 to 4 to establish that the plaintiff received Rs.1,30,000/- in lieu of his share in the schedule properties.
In an attempt to discharge this burden, Defendants 2 to 4 examined the 2nd defendant as DW.2. In her chief examination affidavit, she deposed that on 30.08.1997, her husband Kaki Ramakrishna, the plaintiff, D1, and D5 jointly sold one of their joint family properties situated on Western Street for
Rs.1,30,000/-. As the plaintiff was the eldest, the sale proceeds were placed in a fixed deposit in his name in the State Bank of India, Station Road Branch.
Taking advantage of the death of her husband Ramakrishna (who died on 30.08.2001), the plaintiff withdrew the said amount, claiming that he was taking the entire sum towards his share and the share of the 1st defendant in
Items 1 to 3.
5.9 However, during cross-examination, DW.2 admitted that she does not know in whose name the sale proceeds of Rs.1,30,000/- were deposited. No documentary evidence was filed to demonstrate that the brothers (plaintiff, D1,
D5, and late Kaki Ramakrishna) received Rs.1,30,000/- from the sale of the property on Western Street. Likewise, no document was produced to show that the said amount was deposited in the State Bank of India, Station Road
Branch, Eluru.
5.10 For these reasons, the contention of Defendants 2 to 4 that the plaintiff and D1 appropriated Rs.1,30,000/- in lieu of their share in Items 1 to 3 cannot be accepted. Consequently, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant each possess a 1/3rd share in Items 1 to 3 of the schedule properties.
Rights of Defendants 7 to 10 (Daughters) 5.11 Defendants 7 to 10 contend that, as the schedule properties are joint family properties, they are entitled to equal shares therein, on par with their brothers (plaintiff, D1, D5, and late Kaki Ramakrishna). Since Ex.A.1 partition deed was executed only by their brothers, it is not valid or binding on them.
They argue that all the plaint schedule properties should be partitioned, granting them equal shares alongside their brothers.
15 Legal Position Under the Hindu Succession Act:
5.12 Under the unamended Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which retained many traditional elements of the Mitakshara school, only male members of a
Hindu family, specifically sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons, were recognized as coparceners. Daughters were not considered coparceners and did not acquire any right in ancestral property by birth. Upon the death of a male coparcener, his interest in the joint family property devolved upon the surviving male coparceners. In cases where the deceased left behind a Class
I female relative, such as a daughter, a notional partition was assumed to calculate the deceased's share for distribution among his Class I legal heirs.
5.13 The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, introduced fundamental changes to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The relevant provision reads as follows:
“6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property.—(1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,—
(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son;
(b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son;
(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004. (2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed of her by testamentary disposition. (3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu Family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survisorship, and the coparcenary 16 property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place and,—
(a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son;
(b) the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as they would have got had they been alive at the time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter; and
(c) the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or of a pre-deceased daughter, as such child would have got had he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son or a pre- deceased daughter, as the case may be. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. (4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, no court shall recognise any right to proceed against a son, grandson or great grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law, or such son, grandson or great-grandson to discharge any such debt: Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, nothing contained in this sub-section shall effect—
(a) the right of any creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or
(b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such debt, and any such right or alienation shall be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as it would have been enforceable as if the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 had not been enacted. Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (a), the expression “son”, “grandson” or “great-grandson” shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. (5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section “partition” means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court.” 5.14 Thus, a daughter of a coparcener has been made a coparcener by birth in her own right, just like a son. Daughters now possess the same rights in 17 coparcenary property and are subject to the same liabilities as sons. However, sub-section (5) and the explanation thereunder make it clear that a partition effected before the 20th day of December, 2004, is not affected by the amendment. According to the explanation, "partition" in this context refers only to partitions effected by a registered partition deed or by a court decree.
5.15 The law on this point has been conclusively settled by a three-Judge bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh
Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1, which observed as follows:
"137. Resultantly, we answer the reference as under:
137.1. The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born
before or after the amendment in the same manner as son with same
rights and liabilities.
137.2. The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9-9-2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004.
137.3. Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9-9-2005.
137.4. The statutory fiction of partition created by the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when he was survived by a female heir, of Class I as specified in the Schedule to the 1956 Act or male relative of such female. The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed, the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal.
137.5. In view of the rigour of provisions of the Explanation to Section 6(5) of the 1956 Act, a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the statutory recognised mode of partition effected by a deed of partition duly registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been effected by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly." 18 Application to the Present Case:
5.16In the instant case, Items 1 to 3, 9, and 10 were partitioned by the plaintiff and his brothers (D1, D5, and late Kaki Ramakrishna) under the registered partition deed dated 14.09.1999, marked as Ex.A.1. This deed comprises two schedules: 'A' and 'B'. 'A' schedule consists of Items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties, while 'B' schedule consists of Items 9 and 10.
The 'A' schedule properties were allotted to the joint share of the plaintiff, D1, and late Kaki Ramakrishna (husband of D2 and father of D3 and D4).
5.17By virtue of sub-section (5) and the explanation thereunder, this partition, being effected by a registered document, is saved and is not affected by the newly substituted Section 6 of the Act. Similarly, the said partition is also not affected by Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (introduced by way of a State Amendment in the State of Andhra Pradesh), as those provisions do not apply to daughters married prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986. Since Defendants 7 to 10 have not claimed that their marriages took place subsequent to 1986, the partition covered under Ex.A.1 is not in contravention of Section 29-A of the Act.
5.18Consequently, Defendants 7 to 10 are not entitled to claim any share in
Items 1 to 3, 9, and 10, which are covered under Ex.A.1. However, they are entitled to claim shares in the remaining joint family properties that have not yet been partitioned. They are entitled to equal shares (1/8th share each) on par with their brothers (plaintiff, D1, D5, and late Kaki Ramakrishna).
Conclusion on Points 1 to 3 and 6 5.19The trial court rightly took all these aspects into consideration and decreed the suit accordingly. It ordered partition of Items 1 to 3 among the plaintiff, D1, and D2 to D4, allotting one share each to the plaintiff, D1, and D2 to D4 collectively. Likewise, the trial court correctly partitioned Items 4 to 8 into eight equal shares, allotting one share each to the plaintiff and his siblings, while allotting the share of late Ramakrishna to D2 to D4. The judgment and 19 decree passed by the trial court suffer from no illegality or irregularity warranting interference. Points 1 to 3 and 6 are answered accordingly.
6. POINT NO. 4: APPLICATIONS TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
Defendants 2 to 4 filed several applications seeking to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage, which are discussed separately as under:
6.1I.A. No.319/2023
This application is filed seeking to receive two documents as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Document No.1 is a photostat copy of an unregistered Will dated 24.05.1961. Document No.2 is a photostat copy of a registered sale deed dated 12.04.1924. With respect to these documents,
Defendants 2 to 4 contend that Items 1 to 3, which together comprise 1088.3.25 square yards, were purchased by Kaki Mutyalu, the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff and his siblings. Subsequently, the said Kaki
Mutyalu bequeathed Items 1 to 3 to late Ramakrishna, one of his grandsons.
6.2 I.A. No.883/2021
This application is filed seeking to receive the registration extracts of sale deeds dated 02.12.1973 and 20.12.1978. According to Defendants 2 to 4,
Item No.4 was jointly purchased by late Kaki Ramakrishna and D5 under a registered sale deed dated 02.12.1973, whereas Item No.7 was purchased by
Kaki Ramakrishna in his individual name under a registered sale deed dated 20.12.1978. Defendants 2 to 4 contend that these documents are essential for the effective adjudication of the case.
6.3 I.A. No.435/2025
This application is filed seeking to receive a lease deed dated 12.10.1956, which is said to bear the signatures of one Maridu Ramarao, the second attesting witness to the unregistered Will dated 24.05.1961.
Legal Position on Additional Evidence 6.4The production of additional evidence in the appellate court is governed 20 by Rule 27 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under:
"Rule 27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.—(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court, but if—
(a) the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or [(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or]
(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced or witness to be examined.
(2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission." 6.5Elucidating the scope of Order XLI Rule 27, the Honourable Supreme
Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148 observed as follows:
“Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
36. The general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The appellate court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, the provision does not apply, when on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the court and is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed by the limitation specified in the Rule itself. (Vide K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy [AIR 1963 SC 1526] , Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham [AIR 1965 SC 1008] , Soonda Ram v. Rameshwarlal [(1975) 3 SCC 698 : AIR 1975 SC 479] and Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy [(1979) 2 SCC 601 : AIR 1979 SC 553] .)
37. The appellate court should not ordinarily allow new evidence to be adduced in order to enable a party to raise a new point in appeal. Similarly, where a party on whom the onus of proving a certain point lies fails to discharge the onus, he is not entitled to a fresh opportunity to 21 produce evidence, as the court can, in such a case, pronounce judgment against him and does not require any additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment. (Vide Haji Mohammed Ishaq v. Mohd. Iqbal and Mohd. Ali and Co. [(1978) 2 SCC 493 : AIR 1978 SC 798] )
38. Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the appellate court has the power to allow a document to be produced and a witness to be examined. But the requirement of the said court must be limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. This provision does not entitle the appellate court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can pronounce judgment in a case. It does not entitle the appellate court to let in fresh evidence only for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in a particular way. In other words, it is only for removing a lacuna in the evidence that the appellate court is empowered to admit additional evidence. (Vide Lala Pancham [AIR 1965 SC 1008] .)
39. It is not the business of the appellate court to supplement the evidence adduced by one party or the other in the lower court. Hence, in the absence of satisfactory reasons for the non-production of the evidence in the trial court, additional evidence should not be admitted in appeal as a party guilty of remissness in the lower court is not entitled to the indulgence of being allowed to give further evidence under this Rule. So a party who had ample opportunity to produce certain evidence in the lower court but failed to do so or elected not to do so, cannot have it admitted in appeal. (Vide State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava [AIR 1957 SC 912] and S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam [AIR 1969 SC 101] .)
40. The inadvertence of the party or his inability to understand the legal issues involved or the wrong advice of a pleader or the negligence of a pleader or that the party did not realise the importance of a document does not constitute a “substantial cause” within the meaning of this Rule. The mere fact that certain evidence is important, is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal.
41. The words “for any other substantial cause” must be read with the word “requires” in the beginning of the sentence, so that it is only where, for any other substantial cause, the appellate court requires additional evidence, that this Rule will apply e.g. when evidence has been taken by the lower court so imperfectly that the appellate court cannot pass a satisfactory judgment.
42. Whenever the appellate court admits additional evidence it should record its reasons for doing so (sub-rule (2)). It is a salutary provision which operates as a check against a too easy reception of evidence at a late stage of litigation and the statement of reasons may inspire confidence and disarm objection. Another reason of this requirement is that, where a further appeal lies from the decision, the record of reasons will be useful and necessary for the court of further appeal to see, if the discretion under this Rule has been properly exercised by the court below. The omission to record the reasons must, therefore, be treated as 22 a serious defect. But this provision is only directory and not mandatory, if the reception of such evidence can be justified under the Rule.”
Application to the Present Case 6.6 Defendants 2 to 4, who seek to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage, have failed to provide any explanation as to why they could not adduce the proposed documentary evidence during the trial. Furthermore, their pleadings before the trial court contain no reference to these documents.
6.7 In light of the legal position cited above, parties are not entitled to produce additional evidence as a matter of course or routine without satisfying the conditions laid down in Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code.
6.8 In their written statements, Defendants 2 to 4 did not raise any specific plea that any of the schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of
Kaki Ramakrishna. Their specific contention throughout has been that all the schedule properties are joint family properties. In such circumstances,
Defendants 2 to 4 cannot be permitted to adduce additional evidence that is contrary to their pleadings.
6.9 Therefore, these documents cannot be allowed to be brought on record as
additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27. The applications filed by
Defendants 2 to 4 seeking to receive additional evidence are liable to be dismissed. Point No.4 is answered accordingly.
7. POINT NO. 5: APPLICATION TO AMEND WRITTEN STATEMENT 7.1 Defendants 2 to 4 filed I.A. No.468/2023 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking leave of the court to amend their written statement. Through the proposed amendment, Defendants 2 to 4 intend to introduce a new plea that, by virtue of the unregistered Will dated 24.05.1961, all the properties covered under the partition deed marked as Ex.A.1 were bequeathed to late Kaki
Ramakrishna.
7.2 The proposed amendment sought by Defendants 2 to 4 is not only contrary to the case set up by them in their written statement but also, prima 23 facie, appears to be an afterthought. Having specifically admitted the existence and execution of the Ex.A.1 partition deed, Defendants 2 to 4 cannot now be permitted to disown the same and set up an entirely new case.
Granting such permission would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, I.A. No.468/2023 is liable to be dismissed.
Point No.5 is answered accordingly.
8. Point No.7:
In the result, these appeals are dismissed. Confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court. No costs.
Typed to my dictation by a Stenographer on a computer, corrected and
pronounced by me in Open court, this the 15th of April, 2026.
Sd/-Dr.M.Ramakrishnam Raju
Ist Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on either side in the appeal.
Id/-Dr.M.R.R
I ADJ.,
Eluru.
Copy to: The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru with trial court record.