OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 1 of 35
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR
Present : Dr. S. Srinivas Reddy IV Additional District Judge Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar
Dated this the 15 th day of April, 2019.
OS No. 728 of 2008
Between:
Aluvala Somesh S/o Sathaiah Aged 22 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o Mansanpally Village Maheshwaram Mandal Ranga Reddy District … Plaintiff
AND
1.Aluvala Narsimha S/o late Pochaiah Aged about 40 years, Occ; Agriculture
2.Aluvala Anjaiah S/o late Pochaiah Aged about 35 years, Occ; Agriculture
3.Aluvala Mahesh S/o late Pochaiah Aged about 23 years, Occ; Agriculture
4.Aluvala Balakistaiah S/o late Balaiah Aged about 65 years, Occ; Agriculture
5.Aluvala Sathaiah S/o late Venkaiah Aged about 23 years, Occ; Agriculture
6.Aluvala Venkatesh S/o Sathaiah Aged about 23 years, Occ; Agriculture
7.Aluvala Anjaiah S/o late Venkaiah Aged about years, Occ; Agriculture
8.Aluvala Manemma W/o Balakistaiah Aged about 55 years, Occ; Agriculture
9.Aluvala Bharathamma W/o Pochaiah Aged about 52 years, Occ; Agriculture
10.Vonnada Pentaiah S/o Agaiah Aged about 50 years, Occ; Agriculture
11.Vonnada Bixapathy S/o Agaiah Aged about 45 years, Occ; Agriculture
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 2 of 35
12.Masanpally Anjaiah S/o Rangaiah Aged about 42 years, Occ; Agriculture
13.Siva Kumar S/o Not known to the plaintiff Aged Major, Occ; Agriculture
All are R/o Mansanpally Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Defendants.
. This suit is coming on 12.03.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. G. Chandra Shekar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and of Sri K. Janardhan Reddy, Learned counsel for D1 to D4 and D8 & D9 and Sri MD. Ajmal Ahmed, Learned Counsel for D 10 & D11; and Defendant No.5 to 7, D12 & D13 set exparte and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the case having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following Order :
J U D G M E N T
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 8 for partition of the plaint schedule properties into 12 equal shares with metes and bounds, allotting one such share to plaintiff and allotting three such shares to defendants 1 to 3 jointly, three such shares to the 4th defendant and one such shae each to defendants 5 and 6 and three such shares to the defendant No.7.
2.The averments of the amended plaint which is filed on782008 for effectively adjudicating the issues involved in the suit in proper perspective, to the extent relevant, are enumerated as under:
a) The plaintiff and defendant No.6 are the sons of defendant No.5 herein. The grandfather of the defendant No.5 namely Aluvala Narsaiah and grand father of the defendant No.4 namely Aluvala Lachaiah are the real brothers. The grandfather of the defendant no.5 died leaving behind him his
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 3 of 35
only son Aluvala Venkataiah as his legal heir and successor. The said Aluvala
Venkataiah also died leaving behind him, his two sons i.e., defendant Nos. 5 and 7 herein. Likewise, grandfather of the defendant No. 4 also died leaving behind him his only son A. Balaiah as his legal heir and successor. The father of the defendant no.4 also died leaving behind him, the defendant No. 4 and father of the defendants No. 1 to 3 i.e., late Aluvala Pochaiah as his legal heirs and successors. The father of the defendants No. 1 to 3 also died leaving behind him the defendants No. 1 to 3 as his legal heirs and successors. The defendant No. 8 is wife of the defendant No.4 and the defendant No.9 is the mother of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 herein. The plaintiff has shown in the plaint the family pedigree as under:
Aulava Maisamma (died)
Lachaiah Narsaiah (died) (died)
Balaiah Venkaiah (died) (died)
PochaiahBalakistaiah Sathaiah Anjaiah (died)(D4) 3/12th)
NarsimhaAnjaiahMahesh Venkatesh Somesh
D1 D2 D3D6 Plaintiff1
b)The plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 9 herein constitute the Hindu undivided Joint Family. The agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.5 admeasuring
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 4 of 35
Ac.209 guntas (or its subdivision Sy.No.5/A admeasuring Ac.022 gts,
Sy.No.5/A2, admeasuring Ac.022 gts, Sy.No.5/AA1 admeasuring Ac.012 guntas, Sy.No.5/AA2, admeasuring Ac.011 gts, Sy.No.5/E1, admeasuring
Ac.011 gts and SY.No.5/E2, admeasuring Ac.011 guntas,), Sy.No.6 admeasuring Ac.3.29 guntas (or its subdivision Sy.Nos.6/A1, admeasuring
Ac.037 guntas, Sy.No.6/A2, admeasuring Ac.037 guntas, Sy.No.6/A admeasuring Ac.019 guntas, Sy.No.6/A2 admeasuring Ac.037 guntas,
Sy.No.6/AA1 admeasuring Ac.019 guntas, sy.No.6/AA2 admeasuring Ac.037 gts, Sy.No.6/AA1 admeasuring Ac.019 gts, Sy.No.6/AA2 admeasuring aAc. 0 19 guntas, Sy.No.6/E admeasuring Ac.019 guntas and Sy.No.6/E2 admeasuring Ac. 018 gunts) Sy.No.28 admeasuring Ac.730 guntas (or its sub division Sy.No2.28/A1 admeasuring Ac.1365 guntas, Sy.No. 28/A2 admeasuring Ac.137 guntas Sy.No.28/AA1 admeasuring Ac.030 guntas,
Sy.No.28?AA2 admeasuring Ac.307 guntas, Sy.No.28/E1 admeasuring Ac.0 38 guntas, sy.No.28/E2 admeasuring Ac.039 guntas) SY.No.29 admeasuring
Ac.232 guntas, and agriculture land bearing Sy.No.157 admeasuring Ac.11 09 guntas (or its sub Division Sy.Nos. 127/A1 admeasuring Ac.232 guntas, sy.No.157/A2 admeasuring Ac.232 guntas, Sy.No.157/AA1 admeasuring
Ac.116 guntas, Sy.No.157/AA2 admeasuring Ac.026 guntas
Sy.No.157/1/AA2/1 admeasuring Ac.030 guntas, Sy.No.157/E1 admeasuring
Ac.025 guntas, Sy.No.157/E admeasuring Ac.025 gunts, Sy.No.157/E2 admeasuring Ac.117 guntas) respectively, totally admeasuring Ac.2729 guntas situated at Mansanpally village, Maheshwaram mandal, Ranga Reddy
District which are the suit schedule lands, are ancestral properties of family of the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 9 herein. The plaintiff and defendants born as Hindus and governed by the Hindu Succession Act. The suit schedule
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 5 of 35
lands are the ancestral properties of the family of the plaintiff and defendants
No.1 to 7 herein, as such the plaintiff is entitled for a share in the suit schedule lands along with the defendants No. 1 to 7 herein as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. In the suit schedule lands, plaintiff and defendants Nos. 5 and 6 are the half share holders and the remaining half share in the suit schedule lands belongs to the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 herein. The plaintiff, defendants No. 5 and 6 are entitled for 1/12th share each and the defendant No.7 is entitled for 3/12 share. The defendants No. 1 to 3 are jointly entitled for 3/12th share and the defendant No.4 is entitled for 3/12th share in the suit schedule lands. The plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 7 are in joint possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule lands.
Defendants No. 8 to 13 are not entitled for any share in the suit schedule lands. But the defendants colluding with each other manipulated the revenue records with an intention to deprive the legitimate right of the plaintiff in and over the suit schedule lands. Even though the defendants No. 8 to 13 are not entitled for any share in the suit schedule lands, but their names are appearing in the revenue records and as such they are made as proforma parties to the present suit in order to avoid future complications. Recently some difference s arose in between the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 7 herein, the plaintiff herein had demanded for partition of the suit schedule land with metes and bounds and also for allotment of his separate share in the suit schedule lands. The defendants No. 1 to 7 even though agreed for the same, but going on postponing the same to the future date on one pretext or the other without any valid justified reasons. The plaintiff recently came to know that the defendants colluding with each other trying to alienate the suit schedule lands in favour of third parties, with a malafide intention to deprive
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 6 of 35
the legitimate share of the plaintiff over the suit schedule lands. Seeing the attitude of the defendants, the plaintiff has finally demanded the defendants on 15.07.2008 for partition of the suit schedule lands and for allotment of his separate share, but the defendants No. 1 to 7 without any valid and justified reasons, refused for the proposal of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.
3.The Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have filed a written statement opposing the relief claimed in the suit with the following averments:
It is true that the plaintiff and defendant No.6 are the sons of defendant No.5. It is denied that grandfather of the the defendant No. 6
Avuvala Narsaiah and grand father of defendant no. 4 namely Aluvala
Lachaiah are real brothers. It is denied th grandfather of defendant No. 6 died leaving behind him only son Aluvala Venkaiah as his legal heir and successor. It is denied that Aluvala venkaiah also died leaving behind him his two sons i.e, defendant No. 6 and 7. It is true that grandfather of defendant
No. 4 died leaving behind one son Balaiah alias Balagoud, that father of defendant No. 4 also died leaving behind defendant No. 4 and father of defendant No.1 to 3 i.e., late Aluvala Pochaiah as his legal heirs and successors. It is denied that father of defendant No. 1 to 3 also died leaving behind him the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 as his legal heirs and successors. It is true that the defendant No. 8 is the wife of defendant No.4, defendant No.9 is mother of defendant No. 1 to 3. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff branch is quite different with the branch of defendant no. 1 to 4, Lala Goud is the great grandfather of defendant No.4. Lala Goud died leaving behind him one son namely Lachaiah who also died leaving behind him one son namely Balaiah alias Bala Goud and Balagoud also died leaving behind Pochaiah and
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 7 of 35
defendant No. 4 as his legal heirs, Pochaiah died leaving behind him three sons i.e, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 the pedigree shown by the plaintiff is wrong, and the original pedigree is as under:
Lala Goud lachaiah Goud
Bala Goud @ Balaiah
PochaiahBala Kistiah (died) (D4)
Narsimha(D1) Anjaiah (D2) Mahesh (D3)
a)The above said pedigree clearly shows that the plaintiff branch is quite different from the branch of these defendants. Originally Mansanpally village was a Jagir Village, one Rajanarasingh Raja and Raja Giridhar Raja were the jagirdhars of Mansanpally village, the Ryths who were in possession of the agricultural lands were declared as pattadars, as such the grand father of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and father of defendant No.4 namely Balagoud had been in possession to the extent of ½ share as such, Balagoud (father of defendant No.4) had become the pattadar to the extent of ½ share, Pedda
Venkaiah had been in possession to the extent of 1/4th share as such he become the 1/4th share pattadar, in the same way Agaiah had been in possession to the extent of 1/4th share and as such Agaiah had become the 1/4th share pattadar in suit lands. The plaintiff has no concern with the suit
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 8 of 35
lands, as such the plaintiff had given wrong pedigree to gain some sympathy from this Court, as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is denied that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to 9 constitute the Hindu Undivided Joint family. It is denied that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the family of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 9 herein. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff is stranger to the suit schedule property. It is denied that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 5 and 6 are the half shareholders and the remaining half share in the schedule lands belongs to the defendant No. 1 to
4. It is denied that the plaintiff, defendants No. 5 and 6 are entitled for 1/8th share each and the defendant No.7 is entitled for 2/8th share and the defendant No. 1 to 3 are jointly entitled for 2/8th share and the defendant No.
4 is entitled for 2/8th share in the suit schedule lands. It is denied that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to 7 are in joint possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule lands. The true facts are that the suit schedule property belongs to three branches namely Balagoud branch is entitled ½ share, Pedda
Venkatiah branch is entitled 1/4th share and the Agaiah branch is entitled 1/4th share in the suit lands. As per their shares, the suit lands were partitioned about 6 years back, out of which Pedda Venkataiah had got 1/4th share, the father of the plaintiff namely Sathiaah had sold away part of lands out of his share through registered sale deed and delivered physical possession to the purchasers, this fact itself is sufficient to prove that the suit schedule properties were partitioned long back as per their share. The plaintiff only to harass and blackmail to extract some money from these defendants had brought this false and speculative suit, which is not tenable in the eye of law, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The defendant No. 8 and 9 are purchasers as such the question of collusion does not arise. It is
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 9 of 35
denied that recently some differences arose in between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to 7. It is denied that the plaintiff had demanded for partition of the suit schedule land with metes and bounds and also for allotment of his separate share in the suit schedule lands. It is denied that defendant Nos. 1 to 7 even though agreed for the same, but going on postponing the same to the future date on one pretext or the other without any valid justified reasons. It is denied that the plaintiff recently came to know that the defendants colluding with each other trying to alienate the suit schedule lands in favour of third parties with a malafide intention to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiff over the suit schedule lands. It is denied on 15.07.2008 the plaintiff finally demanded for partition of suit lands for allotment of his share but the defendants No.1 to 7 without any valid and justified reasons, refused the proposal of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has brought a false and speculative suit only to harass and blackmail these defendants to illegal gain, as such these defendants are entitled compensatory cost of Rs.50,000/ under Section 35A of CPC. These defendants deny the entire adverse allegations leveled in the plaint in toto, which are not specifically admitted in this written statement. The plaintiff’s suit is for mere partition is not tenable without the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession, as such the plaintiff suit is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff has brought this false and speculative suit by suppressing the material facts, and for nonjoinder of necessary parties and properties, and for misjoinder of parties, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
The suit is hopelessly barred by the limitation. The plaintiff ought to have paid court fee under Section 34 (1) of APCF and SV Act for recovery of possession, as such the plaintiff suit is liable to be dismissed. Even otherwise,
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 10 of 35
these defendants and their fathers had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment for more than 60 years continuously, uninterruptedly, openly, and peaceably with the knowledge of all, more particularly the plaintiff and his father and great grandfather, as such the title of these defendants has been perfected by way of adverse possession, as such the plaintiff suit is liable to be dismissed. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs of
Rs.50,000/ to these defendants under Section 35A of CPC.
4.The defendants Nos. 5 to 7, 12, and 13 remained exparte.
5.The Defendant Nos. 8 and 9 filed an adoption memo by adopting the written statement file by the defendant Nos. 1 to 4.
6. The defendant No.11 has filed a written statement, by contending as under:
It is true that the plaintiff and defendant No.6 are the sons of defendant No.5. It is denied that grandfather of the defendant No.6 Aluvala
Narsaiah and grand father of defendant No.4 namely Aluvala Lachaiah are real brothers. It is denied that grandfather of defendant No.6 died leaving behind him only son Aluvala Venkaiah as his legal heir and successor. It is denied that Aluvala Venkaiah also died leaving behind him his two sons i.e., defendant No. 6 and 7. It is true that grand father of defendant No. 4 died leaving behind one son Balaiah alias Balagoud, that father of defendant No.4 also died leaving behind defendant No.4 and father of defendant No.1 to 3 i.e., late Aluvala Pochaiah as his legal heirs and successors. It is denied that
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 11 of 35
father of defendant No.1 to 3 also died leaving behind him the defendant
No.1 to 3 as his legal heirs and successors. It is true that that defendant No.8 is the wife of defendant No.4, defendant No.9 is mother of defendant No.1 to
3. As a matter of fact the plaintiff branch is quite different with the branch of defendant No.1 to 4, the Lalagoud and Balagoud also died leaving behind him one son namely Balaiah alias Bala Goud and Bala Goud also died leaving behind Pochaiah and defendant No.4 as his legal heirs, Pochaiah died leaving behind him three sons, i.e., defendant No.1 to 3, the pedigree shown by the plaintiff is wrong, the original pedigree is enclosed herewith.
Lala Goud lachaiah Goud
Bala Goud @ Balaiah
PochaiahBalaKistiah Maisamma (died)(D4) W/o.Agaiah
Narsimha(D1) Anjaiah (D2) Mahesh (D3) Pentaiah (D10) Bixapathi (D11)
a)The above said pedigree clearly shows that the plaintiff branch is quite different from the branch of these defendants. Originally Mansanpally village was a Jagir Village, one Rajanarsingh Raja and Raja Giridhar Raja were the
Jagirdhars of Mansanpally village, the Ryths who were in possession of the
Agricultural lands they were declared as pattdars, Bala Goud alias Balaiah
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 12 of 35
having two sons and one daughter as mentioned in the supra family tree. The said Latchaiah Goud shared his property to Bala Goud alias Balaiah. The said
Bala Goud alias Balaiah shared his property in three equal shares which is given to Pochaiah (died),Bala Kistaiah i.e., D4 and Maisamma i.e., Daughter of Bala Goud alias Balaiah. The said Pochaiah shared his share to his sons i.e.,
Narsimha (D1) herein, Anjaiah (D2), Mahesh (D3) herein. The said Bala
Goud alias Baliah registered Maisamma i.e., daughter of Bala Goud alias
Balaiah in favour of Agaiah who is the husband of Maisamma. The said
Agaiah shared his property to his two sons i.e., Pochaiah, (D10) and
Bixapathi (D11) herein in the suit, as such the grand father of D1, D2 and D3 and mother of the D10 and D4 who is daughter of Bala Goud alias Balaiah and the said Aagaiah i.e., father of D10 and D11 is the possessor and pattedars of the schedule property. The plaintiff has no concern with the suit land as such the plaintiff has given wrong pedigree to gain some sympathy from this Hon'ble Court, as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is denied that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 7 and defendant No.10 and 11, as such the plaintiff is entitled for a share along with the defendant No.1 to 7 and defendant No.10 and 11 as per provisions of Hindu Succession Act. It is denied that the plaintiff and defendant No.5 and 6 are the half shareholders and the remaining half share in the schedule lands belongs to the defendant No. 1 to
4. It is denied that the plaintiff, defendants No. 5 and 6 are entitled for 1/8th share each and the defendant No.7 is entitled for 2/8th share and the defendant No.1 to 3 are jointly entitled for 2/8th share and the defendant
No.4 is entitled for 2/8th share in the suit schedule lands. It is denied that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 7 are in joint possession and enjoyment over
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 13 of 35
the suit schedule lands. The true facts are that the suit schedule property belongs to three branches namely Balagoud branch is entitled 1/3th share,
Pedda Venkaiah branch is entitled 1/6th share and the Aagaiah branch is entitled 1/3rd share in the suit lands. As per their shares the suit lands were partitioned about 60 yeas back, out of which Pedda Venkataiah had got 1/8th share, the father of the plaintiff namely Sathaiah had sold away the part of the lands out of his share through registered sale deed and delivered physical possession to the purchasers, this fact itself is sufficient to prove that the suit schedule properties were partitioned long back as per their share, who are defendants herein i.e, D1 to D7 and D10 and D11 along with plaintiff. The plaintiff filed this suit by way of false allegations to harass defendants 1 to 11 and blackmail to extract some money from these defendants and brought this false and speculative suit, which is not tenable in the eye of law, the same is liable to be dismissed. The defendant No.10 and 11 are the possessors of the part of the schedule property by virtue of the family tree through their mother i.e., Maisamma wife of Aagaiah and enjoyed the schedule property since last 50 years by holding pass books and registered sale deeds, entries in the revenue records as a pattedars. It is denied that the plaintiff had demanded for partition of the suit schedule land with metes and bounds and also for allotment of his separate share in the suit schedule lands. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff branch is quit different from the branch of defendant Nos.
1 to 7 and defendant Nos.10 and 11 and never been in joint possession of suit schedule property as such the question of partition of suit schedule property does not arise. The plaintiff had never been in joint possession of suit lands, as such the plaintiff ought to have paid court fee under section 34(1) of APCF and SV Act for recovery of possession, under this ground alone the suit is
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 14 of 35
liable to be dismissed. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed against the defendant No.11 with costs and exemplary costs of Rs.75,000/ under Section 35A of CPC.
7.Basing on the respective pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial, viz.,
1. “Whether the plaintiffs D1 to D9 constituted Hindu Joint family ?
2. Whether the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties?
3. Whether the plaintiff has been joint possession of the joint family by the date of the suit?
4. Whether the Court fee paid is correct?
5. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and properties?
6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of plaint schedule properties as prayed for?
8. To what relief ?
8.To substantiate their respective contentions, both the contesting parties ie., the plaintiff and defendants adduced oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiff is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3 marked, out of which Ex.A1 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 20042005, ExA2 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 19992000 and ExA3 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 197677. On behalf of the defendants, , DWs 1 to 4 are examined and Exs. B1 to B150 are marked.
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 15 of 35
9.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendants 1 to 4, 8 and 9 and also the learned counsel for the defendants 10 and 11. Written arguments are filed on behalf of the defendants 1 to 4, 8 and 9 and also 10 and 11 separately which are taken on record.
10.Having regard to the submissions and material on record, since the plaintiff is seeking partition of the suit schedule properties as claimed in the suit, the initial burden is on him to show that the suit schedule properties are liable for partition and he is entitled for 1/12th share in the suit schedule properties.
11.Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 : To substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and testified to the contents of the plaint in his chief evidence affidavit. According to him, the defendant No. 8 is wife of the defendant No. 4, defendant No.9 is mother of the defendants Nos 1 to 3, himself and defendants Nos 1 to 9 herein constitute the Hindu Undivided
Joint Family, himself and defendants Nos 5 and 6 are the half share holders and the remaining half share in the suit schedule lands belongs to the defendants Nos 1 to 4 herein, and that himself, defendants Nos 5 and 6 are entitled for 1/12th share each and the defendant No. 7 is entitled for 3/12 share, that the defendant No. 1 to 3 are jointly entitled for 3/12th share and the defendant No. 4 is entitled for 3/12th share in the suit schedule lands, himself and the defendants Nos 1 to 7 are in joint possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule lands, the defendants No. 8 to 11 are not entitled for any share in the suit schedule lands, but the defendants colluding with each other manipulated the revenue records with an intention to deprive his
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 16 of 35
legitimate right in and over the suit schedule lands.
12.PW1 stated in his cross examination that he does not know whether his father and his junior paternal uncle (D5 and D7), sold the property to an extent of 2 acres 2 guntas in Sy.No.157 (1acre 16 gunts belong into D5 and 26 guntas belonged to D7). In his further crossexamination, he has stated as under:
I do not know that D7 and his son and grand sons sold land in
Sy.No.28 admeasuring about 18 guntas and Sy.No.29 admeasuring 1 guna and Alini Rajitha under register sale deed. I also do not know whether sold the land Sy.No.28 to extent of 19 guntas to Alini Sudha under register sale deed.
It is not true to suggest that I am not the Biological son of
Sathaiah but only adopted son. It is not true to suggest that said
Sathiah has only one son by name Venkatesh, and three daughters. It is not true to suggest that I am not his son. It is not true to suggest that since I am not Biological son of said Sathiah I am not able to tell the names of daughters of said Sathaiah. I have not filed any certificate showing that I am the son of
Sathaiah. Balaiah is my junior paternal grandfather. I do not know how many wives he had. I do not know whether
Ramulamma is the first wife of said Balaiah. I do not know their children of Maisamma and Chandramma. I do not know after death of Ramulamma Balaiah married another wife
Chilakamma. Balaiah has only two sons. I do not know name wife of Balaiah. I do not know that said Balaiah has two sons and two daughters by second wife. I do not know whether Balaiah has any sisters. I do not know whether said Balaiah partition property and gave share to his daughters. I do not know whether
Maisamma is daughter of Balaiah and sister of D4 ( Balakistaiah) and mother of D10 and D11 (Pentaiah and Bixapathi). I do not
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 17 of 35
know Agaiah is nephew of Balaiah. I do not know whether the said Agaiah was kept as illotom soninlaw said Balaiah shared his ancestral property between“ n two sons (Pochaiah,
Balakistaiah) and Maisamma i.e.,daughter.
I have not approached nor filed any petition before MRO,
RDO or Collector about noting of the names of the said persons in the pahanies. Witness says that having seen their names filed the suit. I do not know who is Jonada Pentamma. I do not know what is mentioned in pahanies filed by me in this court (ExA1). The suit Sy.No are 5,6,28,29 and 157. I do not know whether one
Agaiah has share in the suit schedule property. I studied up to 2 nd class. I can read Telugu names. In ExA3 in column No.9 and 14 i.e., pattadar and possession name of one Agaiah mentioned as one of the sharers. In ExA2 (the names of the children of the
Agaiah mention). Since 2005 defendants 1 to 4 and D8 and D9 are not on talking terms. It is true, Balaiah (Bala Goud) is grandfather of D1 to D5. It s true the name of the father of said
Balaiah is Lachaiah and father of Lachaiah Goud is Maisamaiah.
It is not true to say that the father of Lachaiah is one Lala Goud and not Maisamaiah. I have not filed any documents relatives said persons showing right in the suit schedule property. It is not true to say that my family branch has nothing to do with family branch of D1 to D3.
I do not know whether Mansanipally village was Jagir village and also do not know one Raja Narsingh Raja, Giridhar
Raja were Jagirs of Mansanpally village. Pedda Venkaiah is my grandfather. I have only know share of my grandfather Venkaiah (25% in the suit schedule property) I do not know about the share of Bala Goud (50% share) and Agaiah (25% share) in possession in the suit schedule lands and accordingly got pattadar rights. We are possession of the land of share of Pedda Venkaiah. And LRs of
Bala Goud are in possession of land of Bala Goud and I do not
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 18 of 35
know about land of Agaiah. I do not know whether son of Agaiah by name Pentaiah (D10) sold land to the extent of 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.157 to Defendants No.8 and 9 (Manemma,
Bharathamma) under register sale deed in the year 1997.I do not know whether said D8 and D9 are in possession of their land.
Sathiah my father did not sell any land to D12 (Anjaiah). I do not know the contents in the written statements file by D1 to D4,
D8 and D9. It is not true to say that about 62 to 65 years back itself the respective share are divided and the parties concerned are in possession of the respective lands.
It is not true to say that my father and his brother already partitioned property of 1/4th share of Pedda Venkaiah. I do not know the sale price of value of the suit schedule land when I filed the suit. The suit schedule land is situated at about 14 kms from
International Airport. It is not true to say that since the land value has increased multi gold in view of Airport only to extract some amount from defendants I have filed this false suit. The suit schedule land are in one place.
13.As against this evidence of the plaintiff, the third defendant examined himself as DW1 and reiterated the contents of the written statement filed on his behalf in the suit. He averred in his chief evidence affidavit as D.W.1, interalia, that defendants 1 and 2 are his elder brothers, defendant No. 4 is his junior paternal uncle, the plaintiff and defendants No. 5 to 7 have no concern with the suit schedule property, the defendant No.8 is the wife of defendant No.4 and defendant No.9 is his mother, the branch of plaintiff is quite different from their branch. According to him, the suit schedule property belongs to three branches namely Bala Goud is entitled to ½ share,
Pedda Venkaiah Branch is entitled to 1/4th share and the Agaiah branch is entitled 1/4th share in the suit lands, and that as per their shares the suit
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 19 of 35
lands were partitioned about 60 years back, out of which Pedda Venkaiah had got 1/4th share, the father of the plaintiff namely; Sathaiah had sold away part of lands out of his share through registered sale deed and delivered physical possession to the purchasers, this fact itself is sufficient to prove that the suit schedule properties were partitioned long back as per their share, and the plaintiff in order to harass and blackmail to extract some money from the defendants had brought this false and speculative suit, which is not tenable in the eye of law, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
14.D.W.1 his cross examination on behalf of the plaintiff has stated as under:
“The surname of mine is Aluvalla. Surname of plaintiff is also
Aluvalla. My grand fathers name is Balaiah. The father’s name of said Balaiah is Lachaiah. I do not know whether said
Lachaiah has one younger brother by name Narsaiah. Said
Lachaiah only brother and he has no siblings. The father’s name of Lachaiah is Lala Goud. IT is not true to suggest that the father of said Lachaiah is Maisamaiah and intentionally deposing his name as Lala Goud. It is not true to suggest that said Lachaiah has one brother by name Narsaiah and I am deposing false intentionally for this case. The plaintiff and his family members are in possession of 25% of suit schedule property. I do not know the father’s name of Pedda Venkaiah who is the 1/4th share holder in suit schedule property. I do not know whether said
Pedda Venkaiah has two sons by name Sathaiah and Anjaiah.
Pedda Venkaiah used to reside in our village. I do not the particulars of successors and legal heirs of said Pedda Venkaiah.
I do not know whether plaintiff is grand son of said Pedda
Venkaiah (Son’s son). Plaintiff is son of Sathaiah. I do not know the father/s name of said Sathaiah. The family members of
Alwalla were in possession of the suit schedule property. Witness
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 20 of 35
adds that apart from them and their family members i.e., of
Alvalla one Vannada, Pentaiah, Bikshapathi. The said Vannada family belongs to maternal aunt. It is not true to suggest that the family members of Agaiah has any share in the suit schedule properties and I intentionally deposed false for the sake of this case. There is no written documents as to the partition in between original share holders held about 60 years back.
Witness says that his father informed him that there was partition of the properties. It is not true to suggest that there was no such partition and only for the sake of this case I am deposing that there was partition.
15.D.W.2 who is an independent witness has supported the case of D.W.1.
In his chief evidence affidavit, he stated that originally suit lands belonged to
Lachaiah who died leaving behind Balaiah alias Bala Goud and Bala Goud also died leaving behind Pochaiah and Aluvala Balakistaiah as his legal heirs,
Pochaiah died leaving behind the defendants No.1 to 3. According to D.W.2,
Mansanpally village was a Jagir Village, one Rajanarsingh Raja and Raja
Giridhar Raja were the Jagirdhars of Mansanpally village, the Rayths who were in possession of the agricultural lands were declared as pattadars, as such, the Bala Goud had been in possession to the extent of ½ share, as such,
Bala Goud had become the pattadar and possessor to the extent of ½ share,
Pedda Venkaiah had been in possession to the extent of 1/4share, as such, he become the 1/4th share pattadar and in the same way Agaiah had been in possession to the extent of 1/4th share as such Agaiah become the 1/4th share pattadar in suit lands. D.W.2 further stated that as per their shares the suit lands were partitioned about 60 years back, out of which Pedda Venkaiah had got 1/4th share, the father of the plaintiff namely; Sathaiah had sold away part of lands out of his share to third parties and delivered the
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 21 of 35
possession. It is the further testimony of DW2 that the plaintiff is also having paternal aunt namely; Balakistamma and the plaintiff is having three sisters namely; Amrutha, Sathemma and Yadamma.
16.In his crossexamination on behalf of the plaintiff, D.W.2 has stated that he has no personal knowledge about the alleged partition took place at about 60 years back, but basing on the enjoyment of the properties only, he stated that the partition had taken place and Bala goud, son of Lachaiah is in possession and enjoyment of half share of the property.
17.D.W.3 who is the son of the defendant No.10 has stated in his chief examination that the entire Mansanpally village was a jagir village, the
Jagirdars were Raja Narsing Raj and Raja Giridhari Raj, the lands covered by
Sy.No.5,6, 28, 29, 32, 54, 55, 56 and 157 of Mansanpally village, were originally the jagir lands of the above stated Jagirdars, the total extent of
Sy.No. 6 was AC.1209 guntas., out of which his grandfather Vonnada Agaiah was in cultivation of an extent of Ac.023 guntas, the total extent of Sy.No. 6 was Ac. 329 guntas out of which his grandfather was in cultivation of an extent of Ac.038 guntas, the total extent of Sy.No. 28 was Ac. 720 guntas, out of which his grandfather was in cultivation of an extent of Ac.135 gts., the total extent of Sy.No. 29 was Ac. 232 guntas, out of which his grand father was in cultivation of an extent of Ac. 128 gunta, the total extent of
Sy.No. 32/1 was Ac. 733 guntas, out of which his grandfather was in cultivation of an extent of Ac. 138 guntas, te total extent of Sy.No.54 was Ac.
1038 guntas out of which his grandfather was in cultivation of an extent of
Ac. 509 guntas, the total extent of Sy.No. 55 was Ac. 15.03 guntas, out of
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 22 of 35
which his grandfather was in cultivation of an extent of 721 guntas, the total extent of Sy.No. 56 was Ac.1038 guntas out of which his grandfather was in cultivation of an extent of AC. 519 guntas, the total extent of Sy.No. 157 was
Ac. 11.02 gts out of which his grandfather was in cultivation of an extent of
Ac. 231 gts. He further stated while supporting the case of the defendants 1 to 3 to some extent, that the plaintiff has filed the present suit only to harass them and to extract amount from them.
18.DW3 stated in his cross examination that he does not know the Aluvala
Maisamaiah, he does not know his sons Lachaiah and Narsaiah, he does not know how many sons the said lachaih is having, he does not know how many sons the said Narsaiah S/o Maisamaiah is having, he does not know against how many defendants the present suit has been filed and that he does not know suit Sy.Nos and its individual extents in respect of which the present suit has been filed. He further stated in his crossexamination as under:
It is true that the suit schedule lands are the ancestral properties of family of the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 7. it is true that the plaintiff and defendant Nos 1 to 7 are entitled shares in the suit schedule properties. He do not know whether defendant Nos 1 to 4 are the ½ shareholders and plaintiff, defendant Nos 5 and 6 are also shareholders in the suit schedule lands.
It is true that the plaintiff and defendant Nos 1 to 7 are in
Joint Possession over the suit schedule lands and they are cultivating the suit lands as on today on approximate basis.
It is true that the defendant Nos 8 to 13 are nothing to do with the family of the plaintiff and defendant Nos 1 to 7.
It is true that the defendant Nos 12 and 13 are nothing to do with the suit schedule lands.
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 23 of 35
I do not know in whose favour our father was alienated the lands in SyNo.54 admeasuring Ac.511 guntas, and Sy.No.39 admeasuring Ac. 217 gntas and even I do not know when his father alienated the said lands that he is having documentary proof to show that his father had obtained the loan from HDCC
Bank limited and discharge the same, but he has not filed the said documents into court.
I do not know that the particulars of family members of Bala
Goud alias Balaiah even he do not know the particular of wives and children of Bala Goud alias Balaiah.
19.D.W.4 is the defendant No.11 in the suit. He testified to the contents of the written statement filed by him, in his chief evidence affidavit. While reiterating the same, D.W.4 has also testified that the plaintiff has filed the present suit only to harass the defendants 10 and 11 and to extort the money from them under pressure and threat of litigation.
20.DW4 has stated in his cross examination that he has not filed any written statements in the present case, he does not know in respect of how many Sy.Nos the present suit has been filed and also the extent of land in respect of which the present suit is filed, that he does not know the particulars of the present suit and that he does not know the total number of defendants in the present and also what is the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the present suit. He also stated in his crossexamination that he is in possession in Sy.Nos and he know its survey numbers but he cannot say the individual extent of each survey number, that he does not know Aluvala
Maisamaiah and even he does not know how many sons is having, he does not know the father of the plaintiff,e even he does not know how many brothers the father of plaintiff is having, that he does not know pedigree of
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 24 of 35
family of plaintiffs. He nextly stated that he does not know how the plaintiff acquired share in the suit schedule property and even he does not know through whom the plaintiff is claiming right/share in the suit. He further stated in his crossexamination as under:
“It is not true to suggest that through they we no way concern with the suit schedule lands, we have fabricated in revenue records in collusion with the revenue officials.
I do not know whether the plaintiff is entitle for 1/12th share in the suit schedule property.
DW3 is my brother son and he has given eviden728ce in the present. I was present in the court on the date of cross examination of DW3.
It is not true to suggest that only to cover up the lacuna in the crossexamination of D.W.3 I filed my chief examination before the court with false allegations.
21.On a careful evaluation of the entire material on record, it is to be reiterated at this stage that the plaintiff has to establish that the suit schedule properties are liable for partition and that he is entitled for 1/12th share therein. However, it is apparent from the cross examination of the plaintiff as
Pw1, as extracted above, that he has specifically admitted that he only knows that his great grandfather Venkaiah was having 25% share in the suit schedule property and that he does not know about the 50% share of Balagoud and 25% share of Agaiah. Interestingly Pw1 also stated that they are in possession of the land of the share of Pedda Venkaiah. Pw1 has not filed any documentary proof to show that he is the biological son of Sathaiah when the defendants have claimed that he is only an adopted son of Sathaiah. Pw1 has also denied a suggestion in his crossexamination that his father and his
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 25 of 35
brother have already partitioned the property of 1/4th share of Pedda
Venkaiah.
22.A perusal of Ex.A1 to A3 which are the pahanies for the years 200405, 19992000 and 197677 filed by the plaintiff as P.W.1 in support of his case, respectively show that separate extents are mentioned in the names of defendants No.8 and 9 and purchasers. Except Exs. A1 to A3, the plaintiff has not filed any other documents nor examined any other witnesses to demonstrate that the suit schedule properties were jointly enjoyed by the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 to 9, and they still remained joint and are liable for partition.
23.Though the plaintiff has filed the chief evidence affidavits of Pw2 and 3 on 2212016 and 1532016 but as they were not produced for cross examination, their evidence is eschewed.
24.In so far as the house property is concerned, though the plaintiff has admitted in his cross examination that there is an ancestral house, but he also stated that it was sold. The defendants have not specifically mentioned the municipal number of the house nor placed any documentary proof/record to show that the said house has not been sold as on the date of filing of the suit.
25.It is the case of the defendants that originally Mansanpally Village was a Jagir Village, one Rajanarsingh Raja and Raja Giridhar Raja were the
Jagirdhars of Mansanpally Village, they gave pattas to the farmers who were in possession of the agricultural lands and as such Pedda Venkaiah got his ¼th
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 26 of 35
share, Agaiah got 1/4th share and Balagoud got ½ share in the suit lands. A perusal of Ex.A3, it is evident that in Col.No.9 and 14, the name of Agaiah is mentioned as one of the sharers. Further, in Ex.A2 the name of the children of Agaiah is also mentioned which is admitted by Pw1. Nextly, Pw1 has admitted that Balaiah is the grand father of defendant Nos.1 to 3.
a)In Exs. B1 to B6, as contended by the defendants No.1 to 4, 8 and 9, the name of Agaiah and his children are shown as pattedars and possessors of the ¼ th share of the suit schedule property. When Pw1 has categorically admitted that Pedda Venkaiah who is his grand father has got only 25% share in the suit property, the plaintiff cannot claim 1/12th share in the entire suit schedule properties in the absence of any material produced by him to substantiate his claim in this regard. Moreover, it is claimed by the defendants No.1 to 4, 8 and 9 that the share of Pedda Venkaiah has been partitioned by the father of the plaintiff and his brother which clearly is suggestive of the fact of earlier partition but the plaintiff has not been able to successfully rebut the same by any acceptable material on record.
26.The plaintiff as P.W.1 in his crossexamination has denied that the son of
Agaiah by name Pentaiah sold the land in Sy.No.157 to defendants No.8 and 9 by registered sale deed under Ex.B88 and stated that he does not know the about the possession of the defendants No.8 and 9 and the land purchased by them.
a)It is the specific case of the defendants No.1 to 4, 8 and 9 that the plaintiff has failed to bring all the necessary parties on record in the suit and on this ground, they contended that the suit is liable to be dismissed. When it
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 27 of 35
is admitted by the plaintiff as Pw1 that his junior paternal uncle who is D7 has died in January 2014, his son whose name is shown as Aluvala Venkaiah, for the reasons best known to the plaintiff, the said person is not brought on record as legal heir of the defendant No.7. This claim of the defendants is also supported by the recitals under Exs.B86 and B87 in which the vendor
No.1 therein is shown as Aluvala Venkaiah son of Aluvala Anjaiah though in
Ex.B.84, the property is shown to have been sold to one Jerupula Lakshmaiah but he is also not made as one of the parties to the suit. Nextly Pw1 in his cross examination has not specifically denied that his grand father had no daughters but only stated that he does not know whether his grandfather had any daughters. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.2 has testified that the suit lands were partitioned 60 years back and Pedda Venkaiah has got ¼ th share.
It is also testified by Dw2 that the plaintiff is having paternal aunt by name
Balakistamma and the plaintiff is having three sisters, namely, Amrutha,
Sathemma and Yadamma. D.W.1 has filed Ex.B89 which is voter list in which the name of Yadamma is shown as daughter of Aluvala Sathaiah at Sl.No.119 of page No.2 and one Venkaiah is shown as the son of Aluvala Sathaiah at
Sl.No.120. The plaintiff has not specifically denied Ex.B89 which is the voters list of Mansanpally, Grampanchayat for the year 1993, Ibrahimpatnam constituency. The plaintiff has not stated that Yadamma is not the daughter of
Aluvala Sathaiah. Moreover, it is contended by the plaintiff that the defendants have not specifically pleaded in the written statement as to which of the female members of the joint family are not included. Though, no specific names are given in the written statement relating to women members who are necessary and proper parties to the suit but are not made as parties, but the plaintiff has not rebutted the testimony of Dw2 in this regard nor
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 28 of 35
contradicted Ex.B.89 with acceptable evidence. The plaintiff has also not examined any of his relatives or villagers to show that he has no paternal aunt by name Bala Kistamma as stated by D.W.2.Therefore, it is apparent that the plaintiff has not made all the proper and necessary parties to the suit and nonjoinder of proper and necessary parties is fatal to the case of the plaintiff as held by the Hon'ble High Court of AP in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants 1 to 4, 8 and 9 reported in VEMUGANTI
VENKAT KALYANI Vs NYAYAPATHI PADMAVATHAMMA AND OTHERS {2005 (6) ALD 204}, NAMBI NARAYANA RAO (DIED) BY LR Vs. NAMBI
RAJESHWAR RAO {2008 (3) ALD 469}, AVULA JAYARAM REDDY Vs.
YERRABOTHULA NAGA RATNAMMA {2012 (1) ALD 292}. A careful perusal of these decisions specifically lay down that nonjoinder of proper and necessary parties to the partition suit is fatal. The ratio laid down in these decisions clearly apply to the facts of the present case.
27. The plaintiff, as discussed above, has not taken any steps to implead the purchaser under Ex.B84. Moreover, DW2 in his testimony has specifically stated that the three sisters of the plaintiff namely Amrutha, Sathemma and
Yadamma are not impleaded. There is no specific rebuttal evidence adduced by the plaintiff by examining any of the village elders or his relatives to show that these three female members named by the Dw2 are not his sisters.
Furthermore, under Ex.B.86 and B.87 the extent of lands mentioned show that they are sold to one Alleni Rajitha in Sy.No.28 in a extent of Ac.0.18 guntas and Ac.0.1 guntas in Sy.No.29 under Ex.B86 and under B87 another extent of Ac.0.19 guntas in Sy.No.28 is sold to Alleni Srisudha.
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 29 of 35
28.In view of the aforesaid legal position as indicated above, it is apparent that the plaintiff has failed to implead the proper and necessary parties as mentioned above including the purchasers under Ex.B84 to B87 which also clearly demonstrate that partition has already taken place in pursuance of which the junior paternal uncle of the plaintiff who is the defendant No.7 has sold his share under Ex.B84 and B85. The father of the plaintiff who is the defendant No.5 has not contested the suit to support the case of the plaintiff that partition has not taken place as claimed by the defendants No.1 to 4, 8 and 9. At the time of filing of the suit, the age of the plaintiff is shown about 22 years and his father whose age was shown about 60 years was the proper person to support the case of the plaintiff if really there is no partition and no land was sold by D7 and his sons under Ex.B84 to B87. There is no material on record to show that there are disputes between the plaintiff and his father who is defendant No.5. The plaintiff did not specifically show that the said properties are still in joint possession of his father and other defendants.
Except Exs.A1 to A3, the plaintiff has not filed any documentary proof contradicting Ex.B1 to B11 filed by the defendants and B12 to B26 in respect of the properties belonged to the defendant No.2 and Ex.B27 to B41 which belonged to the defendant No.3 as mentioned therein. Further, the plaintiff has also not filed any contrary material disputing Ex.B42 to B56 which show the name of the defendant No.1 therein and B57 to B71 which show the name of the defendant No.4 as pattadars and possessors, and Exs.B.78 to
B.83 which are the ROR's relating to the defendant Nos.4, 1, 3, 8, 2 and 9 respectively.
29.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs has contended that the aforesaid
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 30 of 35
pahanies filed by D.W.1 and D.W.3 do not in any way establish the title of the defendants in as much as entires of the names in the pahanies are only for the purpose of payment of land revenue and they do not either create or extinguish title. Though there is no dispute about this proposition of law, but the same does not apply to the present set of facts since by way of abundant documentary proof under Ex.B1 to B88, the defendants No.1 to 4, 8 and 9 have established that the suit lands were already partitioned long ago and the shares of each cosharers were divided and their names are also entered into revenue records showing their title and ownership. If no such partition took place, as contended by the plaintiff, then nothing prevented the father of the plaintiff who is the defendant No.5 in the suit and who has no inimical terms with the plaintiff to contest the suit to substantiate the case of the plaintiff in this regard. The father of the plaintiff who is defendant No.5 ought to have objected at the time of execution of Ex.B84 to B89 if the properties mentioned therein were sold without his knowledge and consent if they were joint family properties. The plaintiff also did not take any legally permissible steps in this regard to summon and examine defendant No.5 to prove his claim that the suit schedule properties were not partitioned.
30.DW3 has filed Ex.B92 to 105 which are the pass books in the names of
Onnada Agaiah, Onnada Pentaiah, Onnada Bikshapathi and ROR along with certified copies of the Adungal Pahani under Exs.B.94 to B.105 to show that the plaintiff is not concerned with the suit schedule properties and they are not the joint family properties of the plaintiff. It is no doubt that in the cross examination, Dw3 has admitted that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 7 and they are in
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 31 of 35
joint possession, but in view of the admission of the plaintiff as Pw1 in his cross examination that his grandfather’s share was only 25% in the suit schedule property and Ex.B84 to 86 would show the alienation of the said properties by the defendant No.7 and his son as indicated above which were not objected by the father of the plaintiff who is the defendant No.5 herein, and coupled with the aforesaid documentary evidence adduced by the defendants No.1 to 4, 8 and 9, this court holds that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the suit schedule properties have remained as joint family properties and are liable for partition.
31.DW1 was crossexamined on behalf of the plaintiff but as indicated above, nothing is elicited from his cross examination to disprove his case pertaining to the 25% share of the suit schedule property which fell to Pedda
Venkaiah’s share.
32.Even though DW3 in his cross examination has admitted, as indicated above, that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7 are entitled for shares in the suit schedule properties and are in joint possession, but when the plaintiff himself has stated that he is claiming his grand father Pedda Venkaiah’s share of 25%, the case of the plaintiff cannot be accepted more so, when he has not placed any documentary proof contradicting the recitals under Exs.B.84 to
B.87 and also the other documents as mentioned above which are filed by
Dw1 and Dw3. Admittedly, the plaintiff or his father who is the defendant
No.5 have not taken any steps to get the entries in the revenue records corrected which specifically show the different extents of the suit lands having been segregated in the names of the defendant Nos.7, 10 and 11 with
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 32 of 35
reference to Exs.B1 to B88 and also Exs.B.92 and B.105 which fact is also admitted by him in his cross examination as P.W.1 to the effect that he has not taken any steps to approach the revenue authorities by claiming right title or interest on the properties purchased by the defendants No.10 and 11. The plaintiff has also failed to establish that he is biological son of Sathaiah by filing appropriate documentary evidence or by adducing acceptable oral evidence of his relatives or any other villagers. Exs.B92 to B105 also show the possession and ownership of defendants No.10 and 11 over the properties in their possession as mentioned therein, in the absence of any contrary material on record adduced by the plaintiff. Therefore, this court holds that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit schedule lands are joint family properties and are liable for partition. As a sequel thereof, it cannot be said that the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 9 constitute the Hindu Joint Family.
Consequently, the suit is also bad of nonjoinder of necessary parties.
33.Having regard to the discussion made in the preceding paragraphs, and in the light of the legal position as enumerated above, this Court holds that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and are liable for partition. Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7, therefore, are answered accordingly.
34.Issue No.6: The defendants have not specifically stated that the present suit which is filed on 582008 is bared by limitation. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties by claiming that they are joint and are in the joint possession of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 9. The defendants claimed
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 33 of 35
that the suit schedule properties have already been partitioned 60 years ago.
However, there is no specific material on record as to the exact date of partition, but the defendants could establish that the suit schedule properties were partitioned and the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as claimed in the suit. Thus, in the absence of any such plea raised by the defendants as to how the present suit is barred by limitation, it cannot be said that the present suit is barred by limitation. This issue is answered accordingly.
35.Issue No. 4 : The plaintiff has filed this suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and paid a fixed court fee of Rs.200/ under Section 34 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act by claiming 1/12th share in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has failed to establish that he has been in possession of the suit schedule properties, either jointly or constructively. In any event, in view of the discussion made in the preceding paragraphs, this court has held that the suit schedule properties are not the joint family properties but have already been partitioned and the plaintiff is not in joint or constructive possession over the same, as on the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, the fixed court fee paid by the plaintiff is not correct and he is liable to pay the appropriate Court fee which has to be recovered from him according to law. This issue is answered accordingly.
36.Issue No.8: In the result, this suit is dismissed with costs.
Typed to my dictation, partly by the typist, partly dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by her, partly typed, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 15 th day of April, 2019.
IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 34 of 35
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined
On behalf of the Plaintiff On behalf of Defendant
P.W1: Aluvala SomeshDW1. Aluvala Mahesh DW2. V. Mallesh DW3. V. Raghu Goud DW4. V. Bikshapathi
Documents Marked on behalf of the Plaintiff:
Ex.A1 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 20042005 Ex.A2 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 19992000 Ex.A3 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 19761977
Documents Marked on behalf of Defendants
Ex.B1 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 195960 Ex.B2 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 196364 Ex.B3 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 196465 Ex.B4 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 197374 Ex.B5 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 197576 Ex.B6 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 197677 Ex.B7 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 198586 Ex.B8 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 198889 Ex.B9 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 199495 Ex.B10 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 19992000 Ex.B11 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 20012002 Ex.B12 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1426 fasli (2016) Belong to D2 Ex.B13 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1423 fasli (2013) Belong to D2 Ex.B14 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1420 fasli (2010) Belong to D2 Ex.B15 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1426 fasli (2016) Belong to D2 Ex.B16 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1423 fasli (2013) Belong to D2 Ex.B17 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1420 fasli (2010) Belong to D2 Ex.B18 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1426 fasli (2016) Belong to D2 Ex.B19 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1423 fasli (2013) Belong to D2 Ex.B20 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1420 fasli (2010) Belong to D2 Ex.B21 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1426 fasli (2016) Belong to D2 Ex.B22 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1423 fasli (2013) Belong to D2 Ex.B23 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1420 fasli (2010) Belong to D2 Ex.B24 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1426 fasli (2016) Belong to D2 Ex.B25 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1423 fasli (2013) Belong to D2 Ex.B26 is the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1420 fasli (2010) Belong to D2 Exs.B27 to B41 are the certified copy of Pahani for the year 1426 fasli (2016) Belong to D2
OS No. 728 of 2008 Page 35 of 35
Ex.B42 is Pahani for the year 1426 fasli (2016) belongs to D1 Ex.B43 is Pahani for the year 1423 fasli (2013) belongs to D1 Ex.B44 is Pahani for the year 1426 fasli (2016) belongs to D1 Ex.B45 is Pahani for the year 1426 fasli (2016) belongs to D1 Ex.B46 to B57 are Pahani for the years 1420, 1423, 1426, fasli 2010, 2013, 2016 belongs to D1 Exs.B58 to B71 are Pahani for the years 1423, 1426,1420 fasli 2010, 2013, 2016 belongs to D4 Ex.B72 is pahani for the year 1420 fasli (2010) belongs to D8 Ex.B73 is pahani for the year 1423 fasli (2013) belongs to D8 Ex.B74 is pahani for the year 1426 fasli (2016) belongs to D8 Ex.B75 is pahani for the year 1420 fasli (2010) belongs to D9 Ex.B76 is pahani for the year 1423 fasli (2013) belongs to D9 Ex.B77 is pahani for the year 1426 fasli (2015) belongs to D9 Ex.B78 is IB register (ROR) belongs to D4 Ex.B79 is IB register (ROR) belongs to D1 Ex.B80 is IB register (ROR) belongs to D3 Ex.B81 is IB register (ROR) belongs to D8 Ex.B82 is IB register (ROR) belongs to D2 Ex.B83 is IB register (ROR) belongs to D9 Ex.B84 is cc of sale deed No. 1024 of 1988 dtd. 16.04.1988 Ex.B85 is cc of sale deed No. 716 of 2001 dtd.07.03.2001 Ex.B86 is cc of sale deed No. 371 of 2015 dtd. 23.01.2015 Ex.B87 is cc of sale deed No. 370 of 2015 dtd. 23.01.2016 Ex.B88 is cc of sale deed No. 1357 of 1997 dtd. 09.06.1997 Ex.B89 is copy of voter list of Mansanpally GP for the year 1993 Ex.B90 is the Rithe Pass book issued in the name of Oannada Agaiah along with translated copy Ex.B91 is the pattadar pass book issued in the name of Oannada Agaiah along with translated copy Ex.B92 is the pattadar pass book issued in the name of Oannada Agaiah along with translated copy Ex.B93 is the certified copy of form 1B (ROR) date 22.11.2017 along with translated copy. Ex.B94 to B.105 are the certified copies of Adangal pahanies along with translated copies.
IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT