Page 1 of 22 OS. No. 92 of 2014
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-VII ADDL. CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT
PRESENT: SMT. RITA LALCHAND
Addl. Senior Civil Judge-Cum- VII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Ibrahimpatnam at Rangareddy District.
Dated this the 27 th day of April, 2026
OS. No. 92 OF 2014
Between:- Smt S. Sujatha W/o. Sanjeeva Reddy, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Employee, R/o. H.No. 4-94, Adibatla village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
.......Plaintiff
AND
1.B. Krishna Reddy S/o. Late B. Raji Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Flat No.403, Stanja Towers, Panchayath Raj Teachers colony, B.N. Reddy Nagar, R.R.District.
2.B. Narsimha Reddy S/o. Late B. Raji Reddy Aged about 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Plot No.40, Chatanya Nagar, B.N. Reddy Nagar, R.R.District.
3.B. Sai Reddy S/o. Late B. Raji Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 4-141, Adibatla village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, R.R.District.
4.B. Bhasker Reddy S/o. Late B. Raji Reddy, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Adibatla village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, R.R.District.
5.Smt T. Balamni W/o. Agam Reddy, Aged about 68 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 1-99, Balapur village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.
6.Smt K. Suvarna W/o. Yadi Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Adibatla village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, R.R.District.
7.Smt M. Shanthamma W/o. M. Ram Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.16-9, Gandhinagar, Badangpet village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.
Page 2 of 22 OS. No. 92 of 2014
8.B. Venkat Reddy S/o. Sathi Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Adibatla village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, R.R.District.
9.B. Malla Reddy S/o. Late Gopi Reddy, Aged about 57 years, Occ: Employee, R/o. Jillelguda village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
10.P. Gopal Reddy S/o. Muthyam Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 6-69, Balapur village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District.
11.Smt D. Sumathi Reddy W/o. D. Sathi Reddy, Aged Major, Occ: Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
12.Jakka Raghavender Reddy S/o. Balwanth Reddy, Aged Major, Occ: Business, R/o. Vanasthalipuram, Hayathnagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District.
13.Mereddy Bhupal Reddy S/o. M. Ram Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 8-5-283/49, Madhavanagar colony, Karmanghat village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distric.
14.Arpana Somani W/o. Sarvesh Narayan Somani Aged 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.22-1105/79, Tilak Nagar, Hyderabad.
15.Smt Shiv Kumar Jain W/o. Ramesh Chandra Jain Aged 70 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. No. 3-3-994, Kutbiguda, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.
16.Rajesh Narayan Somani S/o. Suraj, Aged 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 2-2-1105/79, Tilak Nagar, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad.
17.G. Gurunath S/o. G. Vasudev, Aged 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.401, H.No. 17-1-382/N/46 and 47 Nagarjuna colony, Champapet, Hyderabad.
18.Ramesh Chandra Jain S/o. Sajan Lal Jain Aged 79 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H. No. 3-3-994, Kutbiguda, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.
19.Burri Hanmanth Reddy S/o. B. Narsi Reddy, Aged 77 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 8-6-804/P, Plot No.148, Nagarjuna colony, Hastinapuram, Karmanghat village,
Page 3 of 22 OS. No. 92 of 2014
Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
20.Gurram Raghuma Reddy S/o. Shanker Reddy, Aged 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.101, Dhathri Residency, Padmavathi colony, Kushaiguda, Hyderabad. (Amended as per orders passed in IA No. 4/2023 dated 03.04.2023)
21.M. Ram Reddy S/o M. Narsimha Reddy, Aged 55 years, Occ: Agriculture,
22.M. Sri Vidya D/o.M. Ram Reddy, Aged 25 years, Occ: Housewife, Both are R/o. H.No. 29-346, Gandhi Nagar, Badangpet, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. (Amended as per orders passed in IA No. 285/2024 dated 06.11.2024)
…..Defendants
This suit coming before me for final hearing on 09.04.2026 in the presence of Sri. K. Raghuram Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri. K. Raj Reddy, Advocate for the Defendants No.8 to 12 and Sri. G. Chandra Shekar Reddy, Advocate for the Defendants No. 13, 15, 16, 17 and 20 and Sri. K.Sadasiva Reddy, Advocate for the Defendants No. 21 and 22 and Defendant No.1 to 7, 14, 18, 19 exparte and upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court made the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.The present suit is filed for partition and perpetual injunction.
2.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows: The plaintiff stated that defendant No.1 to 4 and 5 to 7 are her real brothers and sisters and all children of late B. Raji Reddy. It was stated that they are the joint family members. The plaintiff stated that originally her father/late B. Raji Reddy purchased the land to an extent of Ac.3-30 gts in Sy No.292/EE, situated at
Adibatla village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal Ranga Reddy District in the name of the defendant No.7 from the joint family funds from Syed Akber Hussain. The said property is herein after referred as suit schedule property. It was stated that the
Page 4 of 22 OS. No. 92 of 2014 suit schedule property was purchased in the name of the defendant No.7 under an unregistered document and based on the said document, the Mandal Revenue
Officer, Ibrahimpatnam issued proceedings vide file No. ROR/643/1993 in favour of defendant No.7. Accordingly, the name of the defendant No.7 was recorded as pattedhar, possessor in all the concerned revenue records since 1994-1995 and pattedhar passbook and title deeds were said to be issued in her favour. The plaintiff stated that her marriage was performed and nothing was given at the time of her marriage and that her father assured the plaintiff and defendant No.5 to 7 that he would give suit schedule property to all his children equally. It was stated that the defendant No.7 is suffering with mental disorder partially and suffering with ill health and that the defendant No.7 is blessed with one daughter namely Kumari Divya. It was stated that due to health conditions of the defendant No.7, the plaintiff was taking care of the daughter of the defendant
No.7. It was stated that B. Raji Reddy demised in the year 1999 and after the death of her father, the plaintiff requested the defendants No.1 to 7 to divide the suit schedule property into eight (8) equal shares which was postponed. It was stated that the plaintiff, on 10.01.2014 defendant No.8 to 12 have forcibly taken defendant No.7 and got executed the registered document in their favour by playing fraud on her and immediately, the plaintiff lodged a report before the police station, Ibrahimpatnam. The police registered a case vide crime
No.14/2014. The plaintiff stated that she also submitted a representation to the
Registration authorities on 15.01.2014 to not to release the alleged registered sale
Page 5 of 22 OS. No. 92 of 2014 deed said to be executed by defendant No.7 in favour of the defendant No.8 to 12 and the registration authorities acknowledged the receipt vide receipt dated 15.01.2014 and the registration authorities also said to be issued letter advising the plaintiff to approach the court. It was stated that defendant No.7 had no exclusive right, title, possession or interest over the suit schedule property and that she has only 1/8th share in the suit schedule property and the registered sale deed executed by the defendant No.7 in favour of the defendant No.8 to 12 is not a valid one. The plaintiff stated that defendant No.8 to 12 have created and brought into existence the registered agreement of sale cum GPA vide document
No. 1031/2015 in favour of defendant Nos. 13, 17 and 20 and they inturn created and brought into existence the registered sale deed vide document
No.5083/2020 to 5087/2020 without any right and interest over the property. It was stated that the registered agreement of sale cum GPA vide document
No.1031/2015 was executed in favour of defendant No.13, 17 and 20 and they inturn executed registered sale deeds vide document Nos.5083/2020 to 5087/2020, 4926/2021 and 12333/2022 and so they are not valid documents.
It was stated that the suit schedule land is joint family property and all the defendants No.1 to 7 and plaintiff are in joint possession and enjoyment of same and that plaintiff is entitled for share. Since partition was demanded and refused the same, the present suit is filed.
3.Despite appearance made by defendant No.1 to 7, they failed to file written statement and hence they were set exparte on 20.08.2014. Since, defendant
Page 6 of 22 OS. No. 92 of 2014
No.14, 18 and 19 avoided receipt of summons, substituted service of summons were ordered against them and despite publication made they failed to appear
before the court and hence were set exparte on 15.06.2023.
4.The averments of written statement filed by defendant No.8 in brief are as follows: This defendant denied the case of the plaintiff and stated that the suit schedule lands are the self acquired properties of M. Shantamma/defendant
No.7 and due her family and personal necessities she sold the suit schedule properties to the defendant No.8 to 12. As such, the question of partition of the suit schedule lands does not arise. It was stated that originally the grand father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7 namely B. Pulla Reddy was the owner and possessor of the agricultural lands in Sy No. 276, 278, 279, 281, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 265, 266, 270, 282, 283, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 271, 272, 280 total to an extent of Ac.100-20 gts. The sons of the B. Pulla Reddy had partitioned the same through a compromise decree vide OS No.62/1972 on the file of the District Munsiff, Ibrahimpatnam. It was stated that as per the compromise, the lands in Sy Nos. 265 to an extent of Ac.3-02 gts, Sy No.266 to an extent of Ac.2-04 gts, Sy No.270 to an extent of Ac. 1-06 gts, Sy No.282 to an extent of Ac.1-32 gts, Sy No.283 to an extent of Ac. 1-06 gts, Sy No.284, 285, 286, 287 and 288 to an extent of Ac.20-10 gts, totally to an extent of Ac.29-10 gts was allotted to the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 7 and no partition is effected in respect of the above lands, but surprisingly the plaintiff filed the present suit by showing the self acquired properties of the defendant No.7. It was
Page 7 of 22 OS. No. 92 of 2014 stated that defendant No.2 in the year 2003 filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the defendant No.1, 3 and 4 vide OS No. 461/2003 on the file of the Principle Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District and in the said suit, the present suit schedule property was not shown as schedule since the suit schedule land was purchased by defendant No.7, and the same is the self acquired property of the defendant No.7. It was stated that plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 7 colluded with each other and to extract amounts and to knock away the property, filed the present suit with all sorts of false and baseless allegations. It was stated that this defendant along with defendant No.9 to 12 are the bondafide purchasers and hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
5.Defendant No.9 to 12 filed adoption memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.8. Further, defendant No.13, 15, 16 and 20 adopted the written statement of defendant No.17.
6.The averments of written statement filed by defendant No.17 in brief are as follows: This defendant denied the case of the plaintiff and stated that one
Syed Akber Hussain was the pattedhar and possessor of the agricultural land in
Sy No.292, to an extent of Ac.3-30 gts, situated at Adibatla village,
Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, R.R.District and defendant No.7 purchased the said land and since the date of purchase, the defendant No.7 is in continuous possession and enjoyment and mutated her name in the revenue records. It was stated that suit schedule property is self acquired property of the defendant No.7. It was stated that defendant No.7 to meet her urgent family and legal necessities
Page 8 of 22 OS. No. 92 of 2014 alienated the same in favour of the defendant No.8 to 12 under registered sale deed vide document No. 3375/2014 dated 10.01.2014. Later the names of the defendant No.8 to 12 were mutated by the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam vide proceedings No.B/1951/2014 dated 10.03.2015 and pattedhar passbook and title deeds were said to be issued in favour of defendant No.8 to 12. It was stated that the defendant No.8 to 12 have taken necessary steps for conversion of above land into non agricultural land vide proceedings No.L/952/2018 dated 04.06.2018 from the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ibrahimpatnam
Division. It was stated that defendants No.8 to 12 in the capacity of their absolute ownership and possession to meet their urgent financial necessities offered to sell the land to defendant No. 13, 17 and 20 under registered agreement of sale cum GPA with possession vide document No.16568/2018 dated 31.07.2018. Thereafter, the defendants No.13, 17 and 20 have alienated the land to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts out of the land in Sy No.292/E part in favour of the defendant No.13 under registered sale deed vide document No. 5083/2020, the land to an extent of Ac.0-14 gts out of the land in Sy No.292/E part in favour of defendant No.15 and 16 under registered sale deed vide document
No.5084/2020, land to an extent of Ac. 0-13 ½ gts out of the land in Sy No.
292/E in favour of the defendant No.16 under registered sale deed vide document
No.5085/2020, land to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts in Sy No.292/E in favour of defendant No.17 under registered sale deed vide document No.5086/2020, land to an extent of Ac.1-04 gts in Sy No.292/EE in favour of defendant No.20 under
Page 9 of 22 OS. No. 92 of 2014 registered sale deed vide document No.5087/2020. Since, the date of purchase, the above said purchasers are in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. It was stated that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No.1 to 7 are having any concern over the suit schedule land. It was stated that in view of abnormal increase of value of the suit schedule land, the plaintiff in collusion with defendants No.1 to 7 filed the present suit to harass the bondafide purchasers and also to extract some amount illegally. Since, the plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.
7.The averments of written statement filed by defendant No.21 and 22 in brief are as follows: This defendant reiterated the contents of written statement of defendant No.8 and 17 and stated that suit schedule property is self acquired property of defendant No.7 and she sold the property. It was stated that plaintiff are not entitled for the relief and hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
8.Based on rival contentions of both the parties, this court framed the following issues on 17.02.2020:
1) Whether the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 to 7?
2) Whether plaintiff is entitled for partition of the suit schedule property?
3) If so to what relief?
9.The record reveals that this court framed additional issues on 21.08.2023:
1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
Page 10 of 22 OS. No. 92 of 2014
2) Whether the court fee paid is incorrect?
10.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff No.1 got examined herself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A14. Further, plaintiff also got examined P. Prakash Goud as PW-2. On the other hand, defendant No.8 was examined as DW-1 and Ex B-1 to B-22 were marked. Further, the defendants got examined one G. Gurunath, as DW-2. The details of the documents marked are mentioned in the appendix of evidence.
11.During arguments, the learned for the plaintiff stated the facts of the case and stated that the suit schedule property is not the exclusive property of defendant No.7 and she had no authority to sell the property. The learned counsel for plaintiff argued that the property was purchased by the father for the welfare of the daughters and that Ex.B1 is not a valid document and that subsequent documents are also not valid and not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff prayed to decree the suit. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant argued that the suit schedule property is exclusive property of defendant No.7 and she had every right to execute the same in favour of the other defendants. As such, all the sale transactions are valid.
12. ISSUE No.1: It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has share in the suit schedule property and that when she demanded partition, the same was denied by the defendants. On the other hand, the same is denied by the
Page 11 of 22 OS. No. 92 of 2014 defendants. As it is the plaintiff who has approached the court, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the case.
13.Based on the rival contentions of both the parties, the following facts appears to be admitted:
1) That the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7 are brothers and sisters and children of B. Raji Reddy.
2) That B. Raji Reddy and his brothers had many ancestral property for which a suit for partition was filed and same resulted in compromise vide OS No.
62/1972.
3) That one Akbar Hussain was the original pattedhar for the land in Sy No.292.
4) That the property was sold by Akbar Hussain in the name of defendant No.7.
5) That based on the sale, the name of defendant No.7 was mutated in the revenue records.
6) That a sale deed was executed by defendant No.7 in favour of defendant No.8 to 12.
7) That a complaint was lodged by the plaintiff against defendant No. 8 on the contention that defendant No.8 had kidnapped defendant No.7.
8) That the said complaint was closed.
9) That earlier based on the compromise decree of ancestral property in OS No.
62/1972, the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 7/B. Raji Reddy had got land to an extent of Ac. 29-20 gts.
Page 12 of 22 OS. No. 92 of 2014
10) That for the said property, after the death of Raji Reddy, the name of defendant No. 1 to 5 were mutated in the revenue records.
11) That defendant No.2 filed a suit for partition vide OS No.461/2003 in respect of the ancestral property.
14.With the above admitted facts, now it has to be seen as whether the plaintiff could prove her case.
15.PW-1 deposed reiterating the contents of the plaint in her chief affidavit.
PW-1 deposed that the property was purchased by her father in the name of defendant No.7 based on which the name of defendant No.7 was mutated in the revenue records. In support of the same, PW1 relied upon Ex.A3 to A8. PW1 further deposed that the health condition of defendant No.7 was not well and she was mentally unsound and that defendant No. 8 to 12 forced defendant No.7 and got executed registered document forcefully with sole intention to gain wrongfully and got executed a registered document in their favour by playing fraud on her.
PW1 deposed that for the same she had also lodged complaint at the police station vide Crime No.14/2014. The photocopy of the same is filed before the court. Since the document is photocopy, the same was not marked. PW1 deposed that the suit schedule property is joint family property and that she along with defendant No. 1 to 7 had share in it and so when she demanded partition, the same was denied by defendant No.7 and so the present suit is filed. PW1 also deposed that representations were made before the Sub-Registrar Office to not to entertain any registration and not to give the copy of the registered documents to
Page 13 of 22 OS. No. 92 of 2014 the defendants. In support of the same, PW1 relied upon Ex.A9 to A12. PW2 also deposed in favour of PW1 and he stated that the land was purchased for the benefit of all the daughters and the same was stated by late B. Raji Reddy number of times in his presence.
16.On the other hand, DW1 and DW2 deposed reiterating the contention of the written statement in their chief affidavit. DW1 and DW2 deposed that the suit schedule property belonged to defendant No.7 and in support of the same, they relied upon Ex.B8 to B20 and B23 to B31. DW1 and DW2 deposed that subsequently defendant No.7 had sold the property to defendant No.8 to 12 under Ex.B1/B33 and they inturn executed an agreement of sale cum GPA with possession in favour of Sri Sai Homes under Ex.B34. DW1 and DW2 deposed that subsequently defendant No.8 to 12 being represented by Sri Sai Homes had executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.13 vide Ex.B2/B35, defendant No.14 vide Ex.B3/B36, defendant No.16 vide Ex.B4/B37, defendant
No.17 vide Ex.B5/B38 and defendant No.20 vide Ex.B6/B39. It was stated that having purchased the property under registered sale deed it is the defendants who are in possession of the suit schedule property and that the plaintiff has no share in the same. Hence, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit.
17.The first contention of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property was purchased by her father B. Raji Reddy in the name of defendant No.7. Admittedly, no evidence is adduced in this regard, except self serving statement of the plaintiff. Added to it, she had admitted in the cross examination that she has not
Page 14 of 22 OS. No. 92 of 2014 filed any document to show that the property was purchased in the name of defendant No.7 from the joint family funds. The relevant portion of cross examination of PW1 is : “I have not filed document to show that the property
was purchased in the name of defendant No.7 with the joint family funds”.
Thus, it clearly goes to show that the contention of the plaintiff that the property was purchased by her father in the name of defendant No.7 stands unproved.
18.As per the plaintiff, plaintiff contended that the property was purchased in the name of defendant No.7 under unregistered sale deed. Admittedly, no such document of unregistered sale deed is filed either by the plaintiff or by the defendant which is a serious infirmity in the case of the plaintiff. However, during cross examination of PW1, she deposed that she had filed unregistered sale deed under which her father purchased the property. The same is contrary to the documents filed and this is an infirmity in the case of the plaintiff. The relevant portion of cross examination of PW1 is reproduced herewith: “ I have filed the
unregistered sale deed under which my father purchased the suit property.
Witness adds that it was gifted by my father in favour of defendant No.7.
The patta of the suit land was in the name of my father”. Such was never the case of the plaintiff as mentioned in the plaint. As such, the evidence of the plaintiff goes against her own case. In this regard, during the cross examination of DW1 it was suggested to DW1 that the document under which the property was purchased in the name of defendant No.7 was intentionally not filed since the same would reveal that it was purchased by B. Raji Reddy for the enjoyment
Page 15 of 22 OS. No. 92 of 2014 of the daughters. During the cross examination, it was suggested that the unregistered sale deed under which the property was purchased was not filed intentionally as it would reveal that the property was purchased by Raji Reddy in favour of the daughters. The relevant portion of cross examination of DW1 is reproduced herewith: “ It is not true to suggest that since in the registered
sale deed there is mention that Raji Reddy purchased the property in the
name of defendant No.7 and so the registered sale deed is not filed before
the court. It is not true to suggest that there is mention in the unregistered
sale deed of defendant No.7 that the property was purchased for
enjoyment of daughters of Raji Reddy and since the said facts would be
revealed, the said document is not filed before the court”. In this regard,
DW2 was suggested that the unregistered sale deed of defendant No.7 was not filed since it revealed the fact that the property was purchased for the benefit of the children. The relevant portion of cross examination of DW2 is reproduced herewith: “ It is not true to suggest that since there is mention in the
unregistered sale deed of defendant No.7 that the property was purchased
by the father of defendant No.7 in her name, the said document is
intentionally not filed”. From these suggestion given to DW1 and DW2 it appears that the plaintiff herself is not sure as whether the property was purchased in the name of defendant No.7 under unregistered sale deed or registered sale deeds. Had it been that the property was purchased under registered sale deed, nothing stopped the plaintiff from filing certified copy of the
Page 16 of 22 OS. No. 92 of 2014 said document which could allegedly reveal that the property was purchased by
Raji Reddy. On the other hand, had it been that the property was purchased under an unregistered sale deed, nothing stopped the plaintiff from taking any steps to take the copy of the same from the concerned Revenue officials based on which the name of defendant No.7 was mutated in the revenue records. No steps were taken by the plaintiff in this regard and hence the contention of the plaintiff that the property was purchased by Raji Reddy in the name of defendant No.7 stands unproved.
19.The second contention of the plaintiff is that since the property stood in the name of defendant No.7, defendant No.8 to 12 had forcefully taken defendant
No.7 to the Registrar office and by playing fraud upon her, had got executed registered sale deed in their favour. In this regard, PW1 stated that she had also filed a complaint before the police on the contention that defendant No.8 had kidnapped defendant No.7. The photo copy of the said FIR is filed before the court. Though the said document is not marked since it is the photo copy, this court had perused the document and nowhere it reveals that defendant No.8 had kidnapped defendant No.7 for execution of any document. The plaintiff contended that the defendant No.7 is not mentally well and so taking advantage of her health condition, the document was got executed. Admittedly, neither any oral nor any documentary evidence was adduced in support of the contention that defendant No. 7 was mentally unsound. Even PW2 had not deposed anything about the mental condition of defendant No.7. Neither any medical evidence had
Page 17 of 22 OS. No. 92 of 2014 been produced before the court to ascertain the said fact. Added to it, none of the other family members of the plaintiff have been examined in support of the contention that defendant No.7 was mentally unwell. As such, the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant No.7 was not mentally sound remained unproved.
20.Now from above discussion, it is an admitted fact that the property stands in the name of defendant No.7, and so defendant No.7 had every right to execute the document and to deal with the property. As such, defendant No.7 had executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.8 to 12 who inturn executed agreement of sale cum GPA in favour of Sri Sai Homes and inturn the property was sold to defendant No.13 to defendant No.20. Since, the entire transaction took place under registered sale deeds, they appear to be valid and hence the contention of the plaintiff that the documents are invalid documents stands incorrect.
21.The further contention of the plaintiff is that the property was purchased by
Raji Reddy in the name of defendant No.7 for the welfare of the daughters only. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that no such document is produced by the plaintiff in support of its contention. Added to it, the plaintiff claimed that share in suit schedule property be given to her along with defendant No.1 to 7 and so she claimed 1/8th share in the suit schedule property. Had it been that the property is purchased only for the welfare of the daughters, no reason has been explained as why the brother of the plaintiff have been impleaded in the present suit as party and why share was asked to be allotted to them. In this regard, PW2
Page 18 of 22 OS. No. 92 of 2014 deposed that the property was purchased for the benefit of all the daughters of
Raji Reddy and the same was stated by late B.Raji Reddy numbers of times in his presence. However, during the cross examination, it was elicited that neither PW2 was present at the time of alleged purchase of the property by father of the plaintiff nor did he signed any document. In fact it was elicited that he had over heard it. The relevant portion of the cross examination of PW2 is reproduced herewith: “ I was not present at the time of alleged purchase of the property
by the father of the plaintiff. I have not signed the said document in any
capacity…. The father of the plaintiff informed my father about the
purchase of the property and that time I was present and over heard it. I
was not informed about the manner in which the property was purchased
as whether it is unregistered sale deed or under a registered document….
Witness adds that defendant No.7 used to reside with the plaintiff.” Thus, from the evidence of PW2, it is clear that he was not informed directly by B. Raji
Reddy that the property was purchased by him for the welfare of the daughters rather according to him, Raji Reddy informed his father and he over heard it.
Thus, the evidence of over hearing is nothing but hearsay evidence and hence the evidence of PW2 is of no help to the plaintiff.
22.In fact, in this regard, the contention of the defendant is that earlier B. Raji
Reddy had got property in partition amongst his brothers to an extent of Ac.29-02 gts and for the same, the defendant No.3 had filed a suit vide OS No. 461/2003.
In the said suit, the present suit schedule property is not included as the
Page 19 of 22 OS. No. 92 of 2014 ancestral property. The copy of the plaint is filed by the defendants and on perusal of the same, it clearly goes to show that the lands shown are part and parcel of the compromise decree and that the present suit schedule property is not forming part in the suit for partition filed vide OS No. 461/2003. Thus, it clearly goes to show that the suit schedule property was purchased in the name of defendant No.7 and the same remained exclusive property of defendant No.7.
23.In fact from the above discussion, it is clear that it is the defendant No.7 who is the owner of the property and that she inturn sold the same to defendant
No.8 to 12 and that the name of defendant No. 8 to 12 were mutated in the revenue records. In this regard, PW1 and PW2 themselves have admitted in the cross examination that it is defendant No.8 to 12 who are in possession of the suit schedule property. From the evidence of DW1 and DW2, it is clear that defendant No.8 to 12 have inturn sold the property to Sri Sai Homes and subsequently the property fell in the hands of defendant No.13 to 20. Since, the property is the exclusive property of defendant No.7, she has every right to deal with the property and hence the transactions are valid. Thus, the plaintiff failed to show that the suit schedule property is the joint family property and hence plaintiff is not entitled for any relief of partition in respect of the suit schedule property as prayed for. Accordingly, the issue is answered.
24.Issue No.2: As issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit schedule property.
Page 20 of 22 OS. No. 92 of 2014
25.Additional Issue No.1: The learned counsel for the defendant contended that the suit is barred by limitation. In this regard, in the plaint, the plaintiff stated that the cause of action for the present suit arose in the month of
February 2013 when the plaintiff demanded defendant No.1 to 7 to effect partition with respect of the suit schedule property and also in the month of
October and November, 2013 when partition was again demanded, but was rejected by the defendant No.7. However, in the cross examination, it was clearly admitted by PW1 that she had never demanded any partition from the defendant
No.7. Thus, it is clearly goes to show that there exist no cause of action for the plaintiff to file present suit. Since, there exist no cause of action, the question of limitation cannot be determined. Accordingly, the issue is answered.
26.Additional Issue No.2: The contention of the plaintiff is that she is in joint possession of the suit schedule property and so the court fee paid under Section 34 (2) to admission of Rs.200/- is sufficient. As per the discussion made in issue
No.1, the property belonged exclusively to defendant No.7 and it was always in the possession of the defendant No.7. Since it was exclusive property of defendant
No.7, the question of joint possession of the property by the plaintiff does not arise. Hence, the court fee paid under Section 34 (2) is inappropriate. In fact the suit for partition itself is not maintainable in view of the discussion made in issue
No.1. Accordingly, the issue is answered.
27.Issue No.3: In view of the discussion made above, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. Accordingly, the issue is answered.
Page 21 of 22 OS. No. 92 of 2014
28.In the result, the suit is dismissed without cost.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27 th day of April 2026)
Addl. Senior Civil Judge-Cum- VII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Ibrahimpatnam at Rangareddy District.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF
PW-1: S. Sujatha PW-2: P. Prakash Goud
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT
DW-1: B. Venkat Reddy DW-2: G. Gurunath
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF
Ex.A1: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1991-1992 Ex.A2: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1992-1993 Ex.A3: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1994-1995 Ex.A4: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1997-1998 Ex.A5: Certified copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000 (2 sheets) Ex.A6: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2006-2007 (2 sheets) Ex.A7: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-2010 Ex.A8: Certified copy of pahani for the year 2013 Ex.A9: Attested copy of representation dated 15.01.2014 to the SRO, and DRO, RR.District Ex.A10: Attested copy of representations to the SRO, Hayathnagar Ex.A11: Attested copy of representations to the SRO, Ibrahimpantam Ex.A12: Attested Fee receipt issued by SRO, Vanasthalipuram, dated 15.01.2014 Ex.A13: Attested acknowledgment issued by SRO, Vanasthalipuram, dated 15.01.2014 Ex.A14: Original market value certificate dated 16.01.2014
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT
Ex.B1: Certified copy of sale deed vide document No.3375/2014 Ex.B2: Certified copy of sale deed vide document No.5083/2020 dated 29.02.2020 Ex.B3: Certified copy of sale deed vide document No.5054/2020, dated 29.02.2020
Page 22 of 22 OS. No. 92 of 2014
Ex.B4: Certified copy of sale deed vide document No.5085/2020 dated 29.02.2020 Ex.B5: Certified copy of sale deed vide document No.5086/2020 dated 29.02.2020 Ex.B6: Certified copy of sale deed vide document No.5087/2020 dated 29.02.2020 Ex.B7: Copy of 1-B nakhal Ex.B8: Copy of 1-B ROR Ex.B9: True copy of pahani for the year 2014-2015 Ex.B10: True copy of pahani for the year 2011-2012 Ex.B11: True copy of pahani for the year 2010-2011 Ex.B12: True copy of pahani for the year 2007-2008 Ex.B13: True copy of pahani for the year 2006-2007 Ex.B14: True copy of pahani for the year 1995-1996 Ex.B15: True copy of pahani for the year 1984-1985 Ex.B16: True copy of pahani for the year 1981-1982 Ex.B17: True copy of pahani for the year 1980-1981 Ex.B18: True copy of pahani for the year 1976-1977 Ex.B19: True copy of pahani for the year 1971-1972 Ex.B20: True copy of pahani for the year 1965-1966 Ex.B21: Certified copy of compromise petition in OS No. 62/1972 Ex.B22: Certified copy of plaint in OS No. 461/2003
Addl. Senior Civil Judge-Cum- VII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Ibrahimpatnam at Rangareddy District.