O.S.41 of 20131PJCJ., SKHT
In the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge :: Srikalahasthi
Present :: Sri S.C.Raghavendra,
Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Srikalahasthi.
Wednesday, the Twenty third (23 rd ) day of November, 2022
Original Suit No. 41 of 2013
Between:
1.S.Venkata Krishnaiah, S/o.Munaswamy, Hindu, aged about 57 years, residing at door No.7125, P.V.Road, Srikalahasthi town and Mandal.
2.S.Venkata Krishnaiah, S/o.Munaswamy, Hindu, aged about 57 years, residing at door No.7125, P.V.Road, Srikalahasthi town
.. Plaintiffs.
and:
3.S.Venkata Krishnaiah, S/o.Munaswamy, Hindu, aged about 57 years, residing at door No.7125, P.V.Road, Srikalahasthi town and Mandal.
4.S.Venkateswarlu, S/o.Munaswamy, Hindu, aged about 53 years, residing at door No.7180, P.V.Road, Srikalahasthi town.
5.S.Venkatamma, W/o.late S.Nagaiah, Hindu, aged about years, residing at door No.7169, P.V.Road, Srikalahasthi town.
6.K.Venkatamma, W/o.K.Ramanaiah, Hindu, aged about years, residing at Railway Colony, Singarayakonda, Prakasam District.
7.K.Guravamma, W/o.K.Guravaiah, Hindu, aged about years, residing at door No.734/4, P.V.Road, Srikalahasthi town, Chittoor District.
8.S.Rukmini.
9.C.Nadhamuni, S/o.S.Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 29 years.
10. C.Vanaja, D/o.Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 26 years, residing at door No.7168, P.V.Road, Srikalahasthi town, Chittoor District. … Defendants.
Plaint presented on::12.03.2013 P.L.P.on:: Plaint filed on ::12.03.2013
Particulars of valuation Market value of plaint schedule property .. Rs.2,71,321/ 1/4th value of first defendant .. Rs. 67,830/ Value of plaintiffs’ half share in 1/4th share of .. Rs. 33,915/ first defendant 3/4th market value thereof .. Rs. 25,436/ Fixed court fee under Sec.34(2) of APCF Act.. Rs. 200/
Cause of action for the suit arose on 27.07.2011 the date of issue of legal notice by the plaintiff and on 02.08.2012 the date of issuance of reply notice by the defendants and continues dedieindiem at Srikalahasthi town, Chittoor District.
This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants on their behalf in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.
This suit coming on 10.12.2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.S.Gopalakrishna Dass, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri E.Prabhakara
O.S.41 of 20132PJCJ., SKHT
Reddy, Advocate for defendants and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth and decree as follows:
1.that the suit he and the same is hereby dismissed; and 2.that there is no order as to costs.
Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 23rd day of November, 2022.
Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Srikalahasthi.
Statement of costs
S.No.DescriptionPlaintiff Defendant
1.Stamp on plaintRs. 20000
2.Stamp on powerRs. 10200 Rs. 10200
3.Stamp on petitionsRs. 1000Rs. 1000
4.Advocate feesRs. 3,00000Rs. 3,00000
5.ProcessRs. 63000
6.Typing chargesRs. 10000Rs. 10000 TotalRs. 4,04200 Rs. 3,21200
Schedule
Chittoor District – Sri Balaji Registration District, Tirupati – Srikalahasthi Sub District – Srikalahasthi town – Srikalahasthi Municipality – P.V.Road – old ward No.6 – New ward No.7 – Old door No.102 and later changed as No.103 and present door No.168 – old assessment No.7659 – new assessment No.10268 – measuring East to West: 24 feet and North to South: 27 ½ feet bounded on East: house of Venkapathi, South: house of Guggu Saheb @ Ismail Shabe, North: Sakunthala Theatre belonged to Gangannagari Krishnaiah Chttty and West: house of Dr.Chandrasekhar (previously it was belonged to Pichi Reddy).
PJCJ., SKHT
O.S.41 of 20133PJCJ., SKHT
Decree in
O.S.No.41/2013,
dt.23.11.2022.
O.S.41 of 20134PJCJ., SKHT
O.S.41 of 20135PJCJ., SKHT
In the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge :: Srikalahasthi
Present :: Sri S.C.Raghavendra,
Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Srikalahasthi.
Wednesday, the Twenty third (23 rd ) day of November, 2022
Original Suit No. 41 of 2013
Between:
11. S.Venkata Krishnaiah, S/o.Munaswamy, Hindu, aged about 57 years, residing at door No.7125, P.V.Road, Srikalahasthi town and Mandal.
12. S.Venkata Krishnaiah, S/o.Munaswamy, Hindu, aged about 57 years, residing at door No.7125, P.V.Road, Srikalahasthi town
.. Plaintiffs.
and:
13. S.Venkata Krishnaiah, S/o.Munaswamy, Hindu, aged about 57 years, residing at door No.7125, P.V.Road, Srikalahasthi town and Mandal.
14. S.Venkateswarlu, S/o.Munaswamy, Hindu, aged about 53 years, residing at door No.7180, P.V.Road, Srikalahasthi town.
15. S.Venkatamma, W/o.late S.Nagaiah, Hindu, aged about years, residing at door No.7169, P.V.Road, Srikalahasthi town.
16. K.Venkatamma, W/o.K.Ramanaiah, Hindu, aged about years, residing at Railway Colony, Singarayakonda, Prakasam District.
17. K.Guravamma, W/o.K.Guravaiah, Hindu, aged about years, residing at door No.734/4, P.V.Road, Srikalahasthi town, Chittoor District.
18. S.Rukmini.
19. C.Nadhamuni, S/o.S.Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 29 years.
20. C.Vanaja, D/o.Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged about 26 years, residing at door No.7168, P.V.Road, Srikalahasthi town, Chittoor District. … Defendants.
This suit coming on 10.12.2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.S.Gopalakrishna Dass, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri E.Prabhakara Reddy, Advocate for defendants and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants on their behalf in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.
02.The plaint averments, in terse: The plaintiffs are the sons of first defendant. The first defendant, second defendant S.Venkateswarlu and late S.Nagaiah are the sons and the defendants and 5 K.Venkatrama and Guravamma are the daughters of late Munaswamy. The third defendant is the wife of late S.Nagaraiah. Originally, the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the grandfather of the plaintiffs and it is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants. While so, the defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 sold the suit schedule
O.S.41 of 20136PJCJ., SKHT
property in favour of the sixth defendant who is the wife of second defendant, to defeat and defraud the rights of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit for partition and allot their shares in the share allotted to their father/first defendant. Other defendants remained exparte.
03.Per contra, the sixth defendant filed written statement, inter alia contending that the first defendant who is the father of the plaintiff filed
O.S.6/2003 on the file of this court seeking partition of suit schedule property
herein against D2, D4 and D5 herein and against their mother Subbamma and the same was decree by allotting 1/6th share to the first defendant and after the demise of their mother Subbamma, the shares were reduced to five. Subsequently, I.A.193/2007 was filed for final decree and an advocate commissioner was also appointed to divide the shares. But, the learned advocate commissioner filed report that the suit schedule property being a small hut, it is not fit for partition. Thereupon, IA.496/2009 was filed to sell the suit schedule property and for distribution of sale consideration according to shares allotted to them. Meanwhile, their mother Subbamma, D3, D4 and D5 herein, sold their shares in favour of this defendant under a registered sale deed, dt.22.01.2010. Thereby, this defendant got four shares.
Thereafter, this defendant also filed another application under SEc.3 of Partition Act to direct the first defendant to sell his share and accordingly, the first defendant came forward to give his share property to this defendant for Rs.1,70,000/ towards total consideration and also filed a memo to that effect and the proceedings were closed. Subsequently, the first defendant also executed a registered sale deed in favour of this defendant by alienating his share in favour of this defendant. Accordingly, this defendant became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs who are claiming their share through their father, are not having any share in the suit schedule property. After the demise of D6, her representatives D7 and D8 were impleaded and D8 contested the suit proceedings.
04.Having considered the material proposition of facts and law in dispute, the following issues are framed:
1.Whether the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of plaintiff and defendants or not ?
2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties as prayed for ?
3.To what relief ?
O.S.41 of 20137PJCJ., SKHT
05.During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiffs, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exs.A1 and A2 are marked. On behalf of defendants, DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B5 are marked.
06.ISSUES 1 & 2:: As per the plaintiffs’ case, they being the sons of first defendant are entitled to have a share in the joint family property devolved from their ancestors. The plaintiffs are claiming their shares from the share of their father/first defendant.
07.To prove their case, the second plaintiff examined himself as PW1 deposed by reiterating the pleadings and marked Exs.A1 and A2. The first plaintiff was as PW2 and he also deposed in similar lines. To support their claim over the suit schedule property, they also examined PW3 and he deposed that plaintiffs are having share in the suit schedule property.
08.In the cross examination of PW1, he categorically admitted that his farther D1 filed partition suit against his brothers, sister and mother in
OS.6/2003 and the suit schedule property was sold to D6 Rukmini and his father
received Rs.1,70,000/towards his share.
09.In the cross examination of PW2, he categorically admitted that his farther D1 filed partition suit against his brothers, sister and mother in
OS.6/2003 and during the final decree proceedings, learned advocate
commissioner reported that the suit schedule property was unable to divide and D6 Rukmini purchased the suit schedule property from his father for Rs.1,70,000/.
10.To disprove the case of the plaintiffs, D8 examined himself as DW1 and deposed by reiterating the pleadings in written statement in toto and marked Exs.B1 to B4.
11.To corroborate his contention, he also examined DW2.
12.Basing on the above pleadings and evidence, the learned counsel for plaintiffs argued that OS.6/2003 is a collusive suit and D6 herein fraudulently obtained nominal sale deeds in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit schedule property is still a joint family property and the plaintiffs are entitled to their legitimate shares.
13.Whereas, the learned counsel for defendants argued that the father of D1 himself filed the partition suit OS.6/2003 against his mother, brothers and sisters and a preliminary decree was passed by allotting shares. After filing final decree petition, advocate commissioner was appointed and after his enquiry to
O.S.41 of 20138PJCJ., SKHT
divide the suit schedule property, he found it unfit for division and accordingly, he gave a report to that effect. Meanwhile, their mother Subbamma, D3, D4 and D5 herein, sold their shares in favour of this defendant under a registered sale deed, dt.22.01.2010/Ex.B4. Thereafter, sixth defendant also filed another application under Sec.3 of Partition Aat to direct the first defendant herein to sell his share and accordingly, the first defendant herein came forward to give his share property to this defendant for Rs.1,70,000/ towards total consideration and also filed a memo to that effect and the proceedings were closed. Subsequently, the first defendant also executed a registered sale deed in favour of sixth defendant. Hence, the suit schedule property was already partitioned and all the sharers sold their share to sixth defendant and she became the absolute owner. After her demise, her legal heirs are entitled to succeed her property and accordingly the plaintiffs are not entitled to right and they cannot seek any share.
14.Having considered the pleadings, evidence and the arguments of the learned counsels, observed that the claim of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property is joint family property and they are entitled to seek their shares in the share of their father/D1. But the same was disputed by D6 and her children that the suit schedule property was already partitioned and D6 purchased the shares of other sharers and became the absolute owner. In a partition suit, generally, the presumption of joint family prevails unless and until it is disproved. In this regard, it is incumbent on the contesting defendants D6 during her lifetime and her son/D8 to rebut the presumption that the suit schedule property is not joint family property as on the date of filing the suit. In this context, D6 relied upon the judgment and decree in O.S.6/2003 marked as Exs.B1 and B2 and final decree proceedings/Ex.B3. On perusal of Exs.B1 to B3, it is evident that father of plaintiffs/D1 herein filed OS.6/2003 against Subbamma, Nagaiah/husband of D3 herein, Venkateswarlu/D2, Venkatamma/D4, Guravamma/D5 and Rukminamma/D6 and the same was decreed by granting 1/6th share to D1, D2, husband of D3, D4, D5 and their mother Subbamma. Thereafter, advocate commissioner was also appointed to divide their shares. Though Ex.B3 does not disclose the entire final decree proceedings, but the categorical admissions of PWs.1 and 2 manifest that the advocate commissioner appointed in the final decree proceedings in IA.496/2009 filed a report that the suit schedule property herein was unable to divide. The said fact of advocate commissioner’s report that the suit schedule property is unable to divide for allotting the shares is further fortified with the proved contention of the defendants that D4, D5, D3 and Subbamma herein sold their shares in the suit schedule property in favour of D6 Rukminamma under a registered sale deed, dt.22.01.2001 and the D1 also sold his share in favour of D6 Rukiminammaunder a registered sale deed, dt.22.07.2010, Exs.B4 and B5 proves the same. Therefore, the contention of the
O.S.41 of 20139PJCJ., SKHT
defendants is substantiated with cogent evidence, showing that the suit schedule property was already partitioned and the shares sold their shares in favour D6/Rukiminamma.
15.Regarding the contention of plaintiffs that OS.6/2003 was a collusive suit and they have no knowledge about the said proceedings, cannot be conceded. Because, the plaintiff in O.S.6/2003 is no other than their father/D1 herein. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that when the joint family property is opened for partition was the criteria for considering the severance of joint status. In the given case, the partition of the suit schedule property which was joint family property was opened among the wife and children of late Munaswamy immediately after his death and accordingly they also filed OS.6/2003 and the same was decree and final decree procedings was also concluded by alienating their undividable share in favour of D6. Likewise, the plaintiffs herein who are the lineal descendants of D1 are also bound to the decree inOS.6/2003 and Ex.B5 executed by their father/D1. Further, it is also relevant to note that during the lifetime of the father, the children are not entitled to seek the share from the share anticipated to their father in the alleged joint family property. Therefore, the suit schedule property has lost its nature of joint family property and became ancestral property of D6 after the execution of Exs.B4 and B5.
16.Having considered the above facts and circumstances, the suit schedule property is no more joint family property and the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in it. Accordingly, issues 1 and 2 are answered.
17.ISSUE NO.3:: In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and
pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 23rd day of November, 2022.
Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Srikalahasthi.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiffs:
PW1: S.Pavankumar. PW2:S.Muneendra. PW3:L.Ramamoorthy.
Witnesses examined on behalf of defendants:
O.S.41 of 201310PJCJ., SKHT
DW1:S.Vanaja. DW2:K.Ramesh.
Exhibits marked on behalf of plaintiffs:
Ex.A1 :Office copy of legal notice, dt.27.07.2011. Ex.A2 :Reply notice, dt.02.08.2011.
Exhibits marked on behalf of defendants:
Ex.B1 :Certified copy of judgment in O.S.6/2003 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi. Ex.B2 :Certified copy of decree in O.S.6/2003 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi. Ex.B3 :Certified copy of petition in I.A.496/2009 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi. Ex.B4 :Original registered sale deed, dt.22.01.2010 stands in the name of S.Rukmini. Ex.B5 :Original registered sale deed, dt.22.07.2010 stands in the name of S.Rukmini.
PJCJ, SKHT
Draft/fair judgment in
O.S.No.41/2013,
dt.23.11.2022.
O.S.41 of 201311PJCJ., SKHT
In the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge :: Srikalahasthi
Present :: Sri S.C.Raghavendra,
Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Srikalahasthi.
Monday, the Twenty seventh (27 th ) day of December, 2021
Original Suit No. 4 of 2011
Between: Gunneri Vimala, W/o.Gunneri Damodara Reddy, Hindu, aged about 29 years, cultivation, residing at Chodavaram village and post, Thottambedu Mandal Chittoor District. … Plaintiff.
and:
4.Nagolu Sumathai, W/o.Sudhakar Reddy, Hindu, aged about 42 years.
5. Nagolu Sudhakar Reddy, S/o.N.Venkata Reddy, Hindu, aged about 47 years.
Both are agriculturists, residing at Chodavaram village and Mandal, Thottambedu Mandal, Chittoor District. … Defendants.
Plaint presented on::19.01.2021 P.L.P.on:: Plaint filed on ::19.01.2021
Particulars of valuation Market value of plaint schedule property .. Rs.2,38,000/ Notional value for the relief of permanent injunction .. Rs. 7,500/ C.F.paid under Sec.26(c) of APCF Act .. Rs. 598.50 p.s.
Cause of action for the suit arose on 12.01.2011, when the defendants and their followers tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the pf, illegally and highhandedly and continues de dieChodavaram village of Thottambedu Mandal, Chittoor District.
This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants or anybody on their behalf in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.
This suit coming on 10.12.2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.S.Gopalakrishna Dass, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri E.Prabhakara Reddy, Advocate for defendants, this court doth and decree as follows:
1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed, and
2. that both parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 27th day of December, 2021.
Principal Junior Civil Judge ,
Srikalahasthi.
Statement of costs
O.S.41 of 201312PJCJ., SKHT
S.No.DescriptionPlaintiff Defendants
1.Stamp on plaintRs. 598 00
2.Stamp on powerRs. 102Rs. 102 0000
3.Stamps on petitionsRs. 10Rs. 10 0000
4.Advocate feesRs. 23,800Rs. 23,800 0000
5.ProcessRs. 130Rs. 277 00 00
6.Expert’s feesRs. 5,000 00
7.Typing chargesRs. 100Rs. 100 0000 TotalRs. 24,740Rs. 29,289 0000
Schedule
Chittoor District – Sri Balaji Registration District, Tirupati – Thottambedu Sub District – Thottambedu Mandal – Chodavaram survey group – Chodavaram village lands – wet lands – patta No.21
1.Sy.No.52/12an extent of Ac.0.06 cents (full extent)
2.Sy.No.56/6an extent of Ac.0.16 cents (full extent)
3.Sy.No.56/7an extent of Ac.0.69 cents (full extent)
4.Sy.No.56/15/Aan extent of Ac.0.10 cents (full extent)
5.Sy.No.69/1an extent of Ac.0.23 cents (full extent)
6.Sy.No.69/5an extent of Ac.0.06 cents (full extent)
7.Sy.No.69/6an extent of Ac.0.16 cents (full extent)
8.Sy.No.69/7an extent of Ac.0.16 cents (full extent)
9.Sy.No.69/9 A & Ban extent of Ac.0.35 cents (full extent)
10. Sy.No.69/18 Aan extent of Ac.0.07 cents (full extent)
11. Sy.No.69/19an extent of Ac.0.07 cents (full extent)
12. Sy.No.69/20an extent of Ac.0.12 cents (full extent)
13. Sy.No.107/12an extent of Ac.0.03 ½ cents (full extent)
Total Ac.2.26 ½ cents (full extent)
PJCJ., SKHT
Decree in
O.S.41 of 201313PJCJ., SKHT
O.S.No.4/2011,
dt.27.12.2021.
O.S.41 of 201314PJCJ., SKHT
In the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge :: Srikalahasthi
Present :: Sri S.C.Raghavendra,
Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Srikalahasthi.
Monday, the Twenty seventh (27 th ) day of December, 2021
Original Suit No. 4 of 2011
Between: Gunneri Vimala, W/o.Gunneri Damodara Reddy, Hindu, aged about 29 years, cultivation, residing at Chodavaram village and post, Thottambedu Mandal Chittoor District. … Plaintiff.
and:
6.Nagolu Sumathai, W/o.Sudhakar Reddy, Hindu, aged about 42 years.
7. Nagolu Sudhakar Reddy, S/o.N.Venkata Reddy, Hindu, aged about 47 years.
Both are agriculturists, residing at Chodavaram village and Mandal, Thottambedu Mandal, Chittoor District. … Defendants.
This suit coming on 10.12.2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.S.Gopalakrishna Dass, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri E.Prabhakara Reddy, Advocate for defendants and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants on their behalf in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit. %%%%
02.The plaint averments, in terse: The plaintiffs are the sons of first defendant. The first defendant, second defendant S.Venkateswarlu and late S.Nagaiah are the sons and the defendants and 5 K.Venkatrama and Guravamma are the daughters of late Munaswamy. The third defendant is the wife of late S.Nagaraiah. Originally, the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the grandfather of the plaintiffs and it is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants. While so, the defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 sold the suit schedule property in favour of the sixth defendant who is the wife of second defendant, to defeat and defraud the rights of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit for partition and allot their shares in the share allotted to their father/first defendant. Other defendant remained exparte.
O.S.41 of 201315PJCJ., SKHT
03.Per contra, the sixth defendant filed written statement, inter alia contending that the first defendant who is the father of the plaintiff filed
O.S.6/2003 on the file of this court seeking partition of suit schedule property
herein against D2, D4 and D5 herein and against their mother Subbamma and the same was decree by allotting 1/6th share to the first defendant and after the demise of their mother Subbamma, the shares were reduced to five. Subsequently, I.A.193/2007 was filed for final decree and an advocate commissioner was also appointed to divide the shares. But, the learned advocate commissioner filed report that the suit schedule property being a small hut, it is not fit for partition. Thereupon, IA.496/2009 was filed to sell the suit schedule property and for distribution of sale consideration according to shares allotted to them. Meanwhile, their mother Subbamma, D3, D4 and D5 herein, sold their shares in favour of this defendant under a registered sale deed, dt.22.01.2010. Thereby, this defendant got four shares.
Thereafter, this defendant also filed another application under SEc.3 of Partition ACt to direct the first defendant to sell his share and accordingly, the first defendant came forward to give his share property to this defendant for Rs.1,70,000/ towards total consideration and also filed a memo to that effect and the proceedings were closed. Subsequently, the first defendant also executed a registered sale deed in favour of this defendant by alienating his share in favour of this defendant. Accordingly, this defendant became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs who are claiming their share through their father, are not having any share in the suit schedule property. After the demise of D6, her representatives D7 and D8 were impleaded and D8 contested the suit proceedings.
Issues and PWs.1 to 3, Exs.A1 and A2 and DW1 Ex.s1 t 4
11.ISSUE NO.1:: As per the plaintiffs’ case, they being the sons of first defendant are entitled to have a share in the joint family property devolved from their ancestors. The plaintiffs are claiming their shares from the share of their father/first defendant.
11.To prove their case, the second plaintiff examined himself as PW1 deposed by reiterating the pleadings and marked Exs.A1 and A2. The first plaintiff was as PW2 and he also deposed in similar lines. To support their claim over the suit schedule property, they also examined PW3 and he deposed that plaintiffs are having share in the suit schedule property.
11.In the cross examination of PW1, he categorically admitted that his farther D1 filed partition suit against his brothers, sister and mother in
O.S.41 of 201316PJCJ., SKHT
OS.6/2003 and the suit schedule property was sold to D6 Rukmini and his father
received Rs.1,70,000/towards his share.
11.In the cross examination of PW2, he categorically admitted that his farther D1 filed partition suit against his brothers, sister and mother in
OS.6/2003 and during the final decree proceedings, learned advocate
commissioner reported that the suit schedule property was unable to divide and D6 Rukmini purchased the suit schedule property from his father for Rs.1,70,000/.
11.To disprove the case of the plaintiffs, D8 examined himself as DW1 and deposed by reiterating the pleadings in written statement in toto and marked Exs.B1 to B4.
11.To corroborate his contention, he also examined DW2.
12.Basing on the above pleadings and evidence, the learned counsel for plaintiffs argued that OS.6/2003 is a collusive suit and D6 herein fraudulently obtained nominal sale deeds in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit schedule property is still a joint family property and the plaintiffs are entitled to their legitimate shares.
13.Whereas, the learned counsel for defendants argued that the father of D1 himself filed the partition suit OS.6/2003 against his mother, brothers and sisters and a preliminary decree was passed by allotting shares. After filing final decree petition, advocate commissioner was appointed and after his enquiry to divide the suit schedule property, he found it unfit for division and accordingly, he gave a report to that effect. Meanwhile, their mother Subbamma, D3, D4 and D5 herein, sold their shares in favour of this defendant under a registered sale deed, dt.22.01.2010/Ex.B4. Thereafter, sixth defendant also filed another application under Sec.3 of Partition Aat to direct the first defendant herein to sell his share and accordingly, the first defendant herein came forward to give his share property to this defendant for Rs.1,70,000/ towards total consideration and also filed a memo to that effect and the proceedings were closed. Subsequently, the first defendant also executed a registered sale deed in favour of sixth defendant. Hence, the suit schedule property was already partitioned and all the sharers sold their share to sixth defendant and she became the absolute owner. After her demise, her legal heirs are entitled to succeed her property and accordingly the plaintiffs are not entitled to right and they cannot seek any share.
14.Having consideredthe pleadings, evidence and the argumentsof the learned counsels, observed that theclaimof the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property is
O.S.41 of 201317PJCJ., SKHT
joint family property and they are entitled to seek their shares in the share of their father/D1. But the same was disputed by D6 and her children that the suit schedule property was already partitioned and D6 purchased the shares of other sharers and became the absolute owner. In a partition suit, generally, the presumption of joint family prevails unless and until it is disproved. In this regard, it is incumbent on the contesting defendants D6 during her lifetime and her son/D8 to rebutthe presumption that the suit schedule property is not joint family property as on the date of filing the suit. In this context, D6 relied upon the judgment and decree in O.S.6/2003 marked as Exs.B1 and B2 and final decree proceedings/Ex.B3. On perusal of Exs.B1 to B3, it is evident that father of plaintiffs/D1 herein filed OS.6/2003 against Subbamma, Nagaiah/husband of D3 herein, Venkateswarlu/D2, Venkatamma/D4, Guravamma/D5 and Rukminamma/D6 and the same was decreed by granting 1/6th share to D1, D2, husband of D3, D4, D5 and their mother Subbamma. Thereafter, advocate commissioner was also appointed to divide their shares. Though Ex.B3 does not disclose the entire final decree proceedings, but the categorical admissions of PWs.1 and 2 manifest that the advocate commissioner appointedin the final decree proceedings in IA.496/2009 filed a report that the suit schedule property herein was unable to divide. The said fact of advocate commissioner’s report that the suit schedule property is unable to divide for allotting the shares is further fortified with the proved contention of the defendants that D4, D5, D3 and Subbamma herein sold their shares in the suit schedule property in favour of D6 Rukminamma under a registered sale deed, dt.22.01.2001 and the D1 alsosold his share in favour of D6 Rukiminammaunder a registered sale deed, dt.22.07.2010, Exs.B4 and B5 proves the same. Therefore, the contention of the defendants is substantied with cogent evidence, showing that the suit schedule property was already partitioned and the shares sold their shares in favour D6/Rukiminamma.
15.Regarding the contention of plaintiffs that OS.6/2003 was a collusive suit and they have no knowledge about the said proceedings, cannot be conceded. Because, the plaintiff in O.S.6/2003 is no other than their father/D1 herein. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that when the joint family property is opened for partition was the criteria for considering the severance of joint status. In the given case, the partition of the suit schedule property which was joint family property was opened among the wife and children of late Munaswamy immediately after his death and accordingly they also filed OS.6/2003 and the same was decree and final decreeprocedings was also concluded by alienating their undividable share in favour of D6. Likewise, the plaintiffs herein who are the lineal descendants of D1 are also bound to the decree inOS.6/2003 and Ex.B5 executed by their father/D1. Further,it is also relevant to note that during the
O.S.41 of 201318PJCJ., SKHT
lifetime of the father, the children are not entitled to seek the share from the share anticipated to their father in the alleged joint family property. Therefore, the suit schedule property has lost its nature of joint family property and became ancestral property of D6 after the execution of Exs.B4 and B5.
16.Having consideredthe above facts and circumstances, the suit schedule property is no more joint family property and the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in it. (dismissed).
In the result, the suit is dismissed. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs. Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and
pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 27th day of December, 2021.
Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Srikalahasthi.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff:
PW1: G.Vimala. PW2:G.Damodar Reddy. PW3:G.Janardhana Reddy.
Witnesses examined on behalf of defendants: DW1:N.Sudhakara Reddy. DW2:N.Subbarami Reddy. DW3:S.Bhaskar Reddy. DW4:N.Janardhana Reddy.
Exhibits marked on behalf of plaintiff:
Ex.A1 :Registered sale deed, dt.16.08.1993 executed by S.Raghava Reddy and Subbarami Reddy in favour of G.Kesavulu Reddy. Ex.A2: Sale letter, dt.20.06.1998 executed by S.Subbarami Reddy and C.Sidda Reddy in favour of Kesavulu Reddy. Kesavulu Reddy. Ex.A3: Sale letter, dt.20.06.1998 executed by S.Subbarami Reddy and C.Sidda Reddy Ex.A4:Pattadar passbook stands in the name of G.Kesavulu Reddy. Ex.A5:1B Namuna issued by Tahsildar, Thottambedu Mandal. Ex.A6:Registered settlement deed, dt.18.10.2010 stands in the name of plaintiff.
O.S.41 of 201319PJCJ., SKHT
Ex.A7:Registeredsaledeed, dt.16.08.1993 stands in the name of G.Kesavulu Reddy. Ex.A8:Certified copy of 1B submitted by husband of the plaintiff. Ex.A9:No.2 adangal submitted by the husband of the plaintiff. ExA10:No.2 adangal submitted by the husband of the plaintiff. ExA11: No.2 adangal submitted by the husband of the plaintiff. ExA12: 10(1) account stands in the name of G.Penchala Reddy. ExA13: No.2 adangal stands in the name of G.Penchala Reddy. ExA14:Title deed, dt.30.05.1997 stands in the name of husband of plaintiff.
Exhibits marked on behalf of defendants:
Ex.B1 :Registered sale deed, 30.11.2010 stands in the name of 1st defendant. Ex.B2 :No.2 adangal for Sy.Nos.56/6 and 56/7 of Chodavaram village issued by the Tahsildar, Thottambedu Mandal. Ex.B3 :Adangal/pahani, dt.17.04.2012 for Sy.No.56/6 of Chodavaram village Ex.B4 :Adangal/pahani, dt.07.06.2014 for Sy.No.56/6 of Chodavaram village Ex.B5 :Adangal/pahani, dt.29.07.2015 for Sy.No.56/6 of Chodavaram village Ex.B6 :Adangal/pahani, dt.29.07.2015 for Sy.No.56/6 of Chodavaram village Ex.B7 :Adangal/pahani, dt.22.05.2018 for Sy.No.56/6 of Chodavaram village Ex.B8 :Adangal/pahani, dt.22.05.2018 for Sy.No.56/7 of Chodavaram village Ex.B9 :Adangal/pahani, dt.30.08.2017 for Sy.No.56/7 of Chodavaram village ExB10:Adangal/pahani, dt.30.08.2017 for Sy.No.56/7 of Chodavaram village Ex.B11:Adangal/pahani, dt.17.04.2012 for Sy.No.56/6 of Chodavaram village ExB12:Adangal/pahani, dt.30.03.2016 for Sy.No.56/6 of Chodavaram village ExB13:Adangal/pahani, dt.30.03.2016 for Sy.No.56/7 of Chodavaramv illage ExB14:Adangal/pahani, dt.04.12.2017 for Sy.No69/9Bof Chodavaram village ExB15:Adangal/pahani, dt.30.05.2018 for Sy.No69/18A of Chodavaram village. ExB16:1B, dt.19.07.2017 for Sy.No.69/9B and 69/18 7 of Chodavaramv village. ExB17:1B, dt.30.05.2018 for Sy.No.69/9B and 69/18 of Chodavaramv village. ExB18:Cist receipt, dt.12.05.2017 for Sy.No.56/6 and 56/7. ExB19:Epass book for Sy.Nos.69/9B and 69/18 stands in the name of first defendant.
PJCJ, SKHT
O.S.41 of 201320PJCJ., SKHT
Draft judgment in O.S.No.4/2011, dt.27.12.2021.