HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRSENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V RAVINDRA BABU
FIRST APPEAL NO: 214 OF 2019
Between:
1. DANDAMUDI VANI Hindu, aged about 55 years, Housewife,
R/o. D.No.23-152, Yanamalakuduru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna
District.
2. Madala Rani @ Chittineni Rani, W/o Sudhakara Rao, Hindu, aged about
65 years, Housewife, R/o. D.No.1-1, Chikkavaram Village, Gannavaram
Mandal, Krishna District.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND:
1. MADALA VENKATESWARA RAO Hindu, aged about 65 years,
Cultivation,
R/o Nekkalam Gollagudem Village, Agiripalli Mandal, Krishna District.
3. Madala Prasad, S/o Late Suryanarayana,
Hindu, 60 years, Cultivation, D.No.1-8, Nekkalam Gollaugdem, Agiripalli
Mandal, Krishna District.
4. Mulpuri Swarupa Rani, W/o Venkata Rao, Hindu, aged about 55 years,
Housewife, R/o Appalarajuoudem Village, Lingapalem Mandal,
W.G.District.
5. Madala Nirmala, W/o Late Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged about 55 years,
Housewife, D.No.1-8, Nekkalam Gollaugdem,
Agiripalli Mandal, Krishna District.
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): P S P SURESH KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondents: KIRTHI TEJA KONDAVEETI
The Court made the following: ORDER
2024:APHC:34
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
APPAL SUIT No.214 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
This Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and
decree, dated 16.11.2018, in Original Suit No.18 of 2014, on the
file of the Court of XV Additional District Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna
District (for short, ‘the learned Additional District Judge’) where
under the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the Suit for
partition filed by the plaintiffs.
2. The parties to the Appeal Suit will hereinafter be referred to
as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, according to the
averments in plaint in O.S. No.18 of 2014 on the file of the Court
of XV Additional District Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District is that
plaintiffs’ father by name Madala Venkata Ratnam had landed
properties described in the annexed schedule, which are referred
as plaint schedule properties. The said Madala Venkata Ratnam
was having joint family with his sons and daughters. Plaintiffs are
the daughters and their father had three sons namely Madala
Venkata Rao, Madala Surya Narayana and Madala Raja Rao.
Madala Raja Rao died long back as a Hindu joint family member
2024:APHC:34
AVRB,J
AS No.214/2019
2
without marriage and his joint share devolved on the remaining
joint family members. While so, Madala Venkata Ratnam died in
the year 1983. After his death, Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint
schedule property are not partitioned and they are in joint
possession. The defendants paid mesne profits to the plaintiffs’ till
2011. After that they ignored to allot the share and mesne profits.
(ii) In the year 1986, plaintiffs brother namely Madala
Suryanarayana and one Madala Venkateswara Rao jointly
purchased Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property. Madala Raja
Rao died after purchasing the said property. Hence, Raja Rao’s
1/3rd share in the said property also fell upon the remaining joint
family members. Plaintiffs are having right and they are in
constructive possession jointly relating to Item No.3 of the
schedule property. Since 2011, plaintiffs several times requested
the defendants for partition of the property according to law but
they did not hear the same and stopped to allot any mesne profits
also. The plaintiffs are having share along with others and the said
property is to be divided into shares and one such share is to be
allotted to the plaintiffs each by meets and bounds. Therefore,
they are entitled to 1/4th share each in the plaint schedule Items 1
and 2 and 1/4th share each relating to deceased Raja Rao’s share
in the plaint schedule Item No.3, which they are legally entitled.
2024:APHC:34
AVRB,J
AS No.214/2019
3
There was no previous partition effected between the legal heirs of
late Venkata Ratnam. As first defendant is acting detrimental to
the interest of the plaintiffs, they are not inclined to continue the
joint possession and enjoyment. Several times they demanded the
defendants to co-operate with them for partition but in vain.
Hence, the plaintiffs are advised to file the Suit for partition.
4. The defendants 2 to 4 before the learned Additional District
Judge were set ex parte.
5. First defendant alone contested the Suit by filing a written
statement. The first defendant got filed a written statement
denying the averments in the plaint and his contention in
substance is that father of this defendant and the plaintiffs i.e.,
Madala Venkataratnam had never possessed any immovable
property as of his own or ancestral. There is no joint family
property at any point of time for the family consisting of
Venkataratnam and his sons including first defendant. First
defendant’s native place is Annavaram village in Nuzvid Mandal.
They used to make livelihood by doing coolie works and by
working as farm servants. Their family did not possess any landed
property either at Annavaram or anywhere. After attaining
majority, first defendant has occupied some government land i.e.,
2024:APHC:34
AVRB,J
AS No.214/2019
4
Ac.2.38 cents in RS No.32/2 in Annavaram village i.e., Item No.1
of the plaint schedule property, as he is a landless poor person.
Similarly, his elder brother Suryanarayana has also occupied
Ac.1.50 cents i.e., Item No.2 of the plaint schedule. Subsequently,
Government granted D-form patta in favour of first defendant in
the year 1986 in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule
property. He also paid market value to the Government as
prescribed in the said D-form patta. He raised mango garden in
Item No.1 of the plaint schedule about 25 years ago. Either the
father of the plaintiffs or his brothers have no manner of any right
in Ac.2.38 cents of land as it was assigned to him. He alone is in
exclusive possession and enjoyment of Item No.1 of the plaint
schedule property. Similarly, his elder brother Suryanarayana has
also raised garden in his land of Ac.1.50 cents. The Item Nos.1
and 2 of plaint schedule properties were never treated as joint
family properties. Government granted pattadar title deed and
passbook in favour of first defendant in respect of Item No.1 of
plaint schedule property about 15 years ago. Government also
issued such documents in favour of elder brother of this defendant
by name Madala Suryanarayana in respect of Item No.2 of plaint
schedule property.
2024:APHC:34
AVRB,J
AS No.214/2019
5
6. In respect of Item No.3 of plaint schedule property i.e.,
0.25¾ cents of site it was purchased jointly by first defendant and
his two brothers Suryanarayana and Raja Rao under a registered
sale deed dated 12.08.1986 to construct residential houses for
their respective families. In the year 1987, there was an oral
partition of Item No.3 of plaint schedule among first defendant and
his two brothers which is in a rectangular shape having more
length in north – south direction and less width at road facing on
its north. Hence, a joint passage of 3 yards width (Ac.0.4¾ cents
in extent) was carved out in eastern side of Item No.3 of plaint
schedule to facilitate for ingress and aggress to the respective
shares of first defendant and his brothers. There is a road on the
northern side of Ac.0.25¾ cents. An extent of about Ac.0.1½ cents
abutting road was demarcated for all the three brothers to raise
shops in future. Out of the said Ac.0.1½, western most portion of
Ac.0.½ cent was allotted to the share of elder brother –
Suryanarayana. Middle portion of Ac.0.½ was allotted to the share
of this defendant. Eastern portion of Ac.0.½ cent was allotted to
the share of younger brother - Raja Rao. Out of Item No.3 of plaint
schedule site of Ac.0.25¾ cents, the southern most portion of
Ac.0.9 cents was demarcated i.e., Ac.0.3 cents each for the
purpose of keeping hayricks and raising cattle sheds etc. The
2024:APHC:34
AVRB,J
AS No.214/2019
6
southern most portion of Ac.0.3 cents was allotted to the exclusive
share of eldest brother Suryanarayana. Middle portion of Ac.0.3
cents was allotted to this defendant. The northern portion of
Ac.0.3 cents was allotted to the share of youngest brother - Raja
Rao. The remaining site was separated as residential house sites
and each one of the brother has got about 0.3½ cents. Out of
residential house sites, southern most portion of Ac.0.3½ cents
was to the exclusive share of eldest brother - Suryanarayana,
middle portion of Ac.0.3½ cents was allotted to first defendant and
northern portion of Ac.0.3½ cents was allotted to youngest brother
- Raja Rao. On the date of partition, first defendant and his two
brothers took separate possession of their respective shares. After
partition, first defendant constructed a tiled house in his house of
Ac.0.3½ cents and he has been residing there with his family
members. Two years later, his elder brother - Suryanarayana
constructed tiled house in his house site which was allotted to his
share. So, by virtue of it, each brother has got total extent of
Ac.0.7 cents in 3 bits. Rest of the Ac.0.4¾ cents was set apart as
joint passage. Item No.3 of the plaint schedule joint family
property was not in joint nature. While so, the younger brother of
first defendant Madala Raja Rao died in the year 1990. By then
marriage of the second plaintiff was not performed. Mother and
2024:APHC:34
AVRB,J
AS No.214/2019
7
elder brother of first defendant advised first defendant to take
share of the said Raja Rao and he was asked to arrange
Rs.20,000/- for marriage expenses of second plaintiff. First
defendant agreed for it and gave Rs.20,000/- to mother of the first
defendant who spent the amount for marriage expenses of second
plaintiff in the year 1991. So, he took possession of three bits of
site that were allotted to the share of Raja Rao. He raised cattle
shed in the residential house site of Ac.0.3½ cents of Raja Rao.
So, first defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of
Ac.0.7 cents as of his own along with his own share of Ac.0.7
cents. Thus, the first defendant has got Ac.0.14 cents out of Item
No.3 of plaint schedule. The elder brother of the first defendant
died about 3 years ago and his properties i.e., Item No.2 of plaint
schedule and Ac.0.7 cents in Item No.3 of plaint schedule along
with the tiled house therein devolved upon his legal heirs i.e.,
defendants 2 to 4. The plaintiffs mischievously had shown Item
No.3 as vacant house site by suppressing the existence of two tiled
houses and two cattle sheds in various portions of Item No.3 of
plaint schedule. The western boundary of Item Nos.1 and 2 of
plaint schedule were wrongly shown as Donka. The boundary of
Item Nos.1 and 2 of plaint schedule is the land of Akkineni
Nageswara Rao. The original extent of Item No.1 of plaint schedule
2024:APHC:34
AVRB,J
AS No.214/2019
8
is Ac.2.38 cents. Actual extent of Item No.3 is Ac.0.25¾ cents but
not Ac.0.23½ cents. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek
any partition as such the Suit is liable to be dismissed.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues
were settled for trial before the trial Court:
1) Whether the plaint schedule properties are the joint
family properties? If so, liable to be partitioned?
2) Whether there is no cause of action to file the suit?
3) To what relief?
8. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, second
plaintiff was examined as PW.1. The husband of the first plaintiff
was examined as PW.2. Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of
the plaintiffs. First defendant examined himself as DW.1 and got
marked Exs.B-1 to B-9.
9. The learned Additional District Judge on conclusion of trial
and on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record
dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.
2024:APHC:34
AVRB,J
AS No.214/2019
9
10. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree of the
learned Additional District Judge, the un-successful plaintiffs filed
the present Appeal.
11. Now, in deciding the present Appeal, the points that arise for
determination are as follows:
1) Whether the plaintiffs before the learned Additional
District Judge proved that Item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint
schedule are joint family properties and that they are
entitled to claim for partition?
2) Whether the judgment, dated 16.11.2018 in O.S.
No.18 of 2014 is sustainable under law and facts and
whether there are any grounds to interfere with the
same?
POINT Nos.1 & 2:
12. PW.1 before the trial Court was no other than the second
plaintiff who got filed her chief-examination affidavit adverting to
the case of the plaintiffs as stated in the pleadings. Through her
examination-in-chief, Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. Ex.A-1 is the
adangal copy dated 24.04.2013 obtained from mee seva. Ex.A-2 is
the adangal copy dated 24.01.2013 obtained from mee seva.
2024:APHC:34
AVRB,J
AS No.214/2019
10
Ex.A-3 is the office copy of registered notice. Ex.A-4 is the postal
receipt. Ex.A-5 is market value certificate dated 11.06.2013 and
Ex.A-6 is the market value certificate dated 12.06.2013. Husband
of the first plaintiff was examined as PW.2 and in his chiefexamination affidavit PW.2 put forth the facts in tune with the
pleadings.
13. The first defendant as DW.1 got filed his chief-examination
affidavit and through his examination, Exs.B-1 to B-9 were
marked. Ex.B-1 is the D form patta of him. Ex.B-2 is the Pattadar
passbook of him. Ex.B-3 is the Title deed of him. Ex.B-4 is Form
1-B dated 14.04.2018. Ex.B-5 is the pattadar adangal for Fasli
1425 dated 14.04.2018. Ex.B-6 is the pattadar adangal for Fasli
1426 dated 14.04.2018. Ex.B-7 is the pattadar adangal for Fasli
1427 dated 14.04.2018. Ex.B-8 is the registered sale deed dated
12.08.1986 and Ex.B-9 is the bunch of 7 house tax receipts.
14. Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs, would canvass the facts in
accordance with the plaint averments. He would contend that the
plaint schedule properties are of ancestral properties of the father
of the plaintiffs and the first defendant. The contention of the first
defendant is that Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule
2024:APHC:34
AVRB,J
AS No.214/2019
11
properties are not joint family properties and that they were
assigned to him and his elder brother Suryanarayana. With regard
to Item No.3 also the first defendant raised a contention that he
along with others i.e., Suryanarayana and Raja Rao purchased the
same and after that it was partitioned. His claim was that several
changes were made in respect of Item No.3 of the plaint schedule
and that the plaintiffs shown Item No.3 of the plaint schedule as
vacant site. He would further submit that the plaintiffs examined
PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Ex.A-1 to A-6. Exs.A-1 and A-2
shows the name of the father of the plaintiffs in respect of Item
No.2 of the plaint schedule property as one of the enjoyer. He
would further submit that though the first defendant got marked
Exs.B-1 to B-9 but Ex.B-1 is only relating to Item No.1 of the
plaint schedule. Ex.B-1 the so called D-form patta in favour of the
first defendant is unconcerned with Item No.2 of the plaint
schedule. So, absolutely, according to the evidence available on
record, insofar as Item No.2 of the plaint schedule is concerned,
the first defendant did not claim it, as such there was no
justification for the learned Additional District Judge not to grant
any decree at least in respect of Item No.2 of the plaint schedule.
Insofar as Item No.3 of the plaint schedule is concerned, first
defendant never claimed that as it is of his entire extent. He put
2024:APHC:34
AVRB,J
AS No.214/2019
12
forth various contentions as regards the so called partition to him
and his elder brother and Raja Rao and the so called
constructions but they are not at all proved in tune with the
evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants would ultimately
submit that though a particular person is granted with assigned
land but he would not have divested his ownership in the property
and there is no law that assigned lands cannot be partitioned. He
would submit that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad in LAO-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella
Divison, Domalaguda, Hyderabad and others v. Mekala
Pandu and others1 recognized the fact that a person who is
assigned with the lands will have absolute rights to enjoy the
property as full owner. So, the first defendant cannot succeed in
his contention. Learned counsel would further rely upon a
decision of the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad in Akula Sangappa v. Bandam Siddappa2. Learned
counsel would further submit that even the first defendant did not
examine any revenue official in support of his contention as
regards Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. With the above
submissions he would contend that Appeal is liable to be allowed.
1 2004 (2) ALD 451 (DB)
2 2015 LawSuit (Hyd) 866
2024:APHC:34
AVRB,J
AS No.214/2019
13
15. Sri Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned counsel for the first
respondent/first defendant, would contend that there was no
dispute about the death of father of the plaintiffs and the first
defendant in the year 1983. No piece of paper was filed by the
plaintiffs to show that father of the plaintiffs was the owner of the
plaint schedule properties prior to his death. The plaintiffs cannot
succeed basing on Exs.A-1 and A-2 which is of Fasli 1422. Even
the name of the father of the plaintiffs was only shown as enjoyer
in respect of Fasli 1422, which must have been relating to the year
2013 or 2014. His name should not have been shown as enjoyer
when he died in the year 1983. So, those Exs.A-1 and A-2 will not
support the contention of the appellants. Ex.B-1 is relating to Item
No.1 of the plaint schedule property. In the grounds of Appeal it
was contended that Ex.B-1 was obtained in the year 2016. He
would submit that above said contention is not tenable and
Ex.B-1 is relating to the year 1986. After the death of father of the
plaintiffs and first defendant he occupied the land and obtained
Ex.B-1 D-form patta in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint schedule
property. Even elder brother of the first defendant also obtained a
patta in the same year. Pleadings of the plaintiffs are nothing but
vague and they are not throwing an inconsistent case. Conduct of
the plaintiffs could be gathered by looking into their cross2024:APHC:34
AVRB,J
AS No.214/2019
14
examination part. The learned Additional District Judge
thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly declined
to grant the relief as such the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
16. Before going to appreciate the contentions, it is pertinent to
look into the plaint schedule. Item No.1 of the plaint schedule is
described as Ac.2.28 cents in RS No.32/2 of Annavaram Village
Nuziveedu Mandal with specific boundaries. Southern boundary of
Item No.1 is Item No.2 of the plaint schedule, which is an extent of
Ac.1.50 cents in RS No.32/3 in Annavaram Village of Nuziveedu
Mandal. The northern boundary of Item No.2 is Item No.1 of the
schedule property. Coming to Item No.2 of the plaint schedule
property, it is in an extent of Ac.1.50 cents in Survey No.32/03.
Coming to Item No.3, it is described as house site in an extent of
Ac.0.23½ cents situated in RS No.120/2 of Adavinekkalam village
with specific boundaries.
17. Firstly, a perusal of the plaint averments would disclose that
plaintiffs did not make any consistent pleading as to how the
plaint schedule properties were being treated as joint family
properties. There is no proper pleading as to whether the Madala
Venkata Ratnam acquired the properties from his ancestors or
acquired the properties with joint family nucleus. Absolutely, the
2024:APHC:34
AVRB,J
AS No.214/2019
15
pleadings are bereft of necessary details in this regard. Though the
first defendant raised a specific contention that Item Nos.1 and 2
of the plaint schedule properties were assigned lands in the name
of him i.e., Item No.1 is in his name and Item No.2 is in the name
of his elder brother Suryanarayana and further Item No.3 of the
plaint schedule property was purchased by him, Suryanarayana
and Raja Rao jointly and later it underwent several changes and
that the plaintiffs suppressed the existence of houses in Item No.3
but the plaintiffs did not choose to file any rejoinder making
proper pleadings.
18. Now, it is pertinent to look into the cross-examination part.
As seen from the evidence of PW.1 in cross-examination she
deposed that her father purchased Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint
schedule property from one Rani of Mylavaram before his death.
She did not have any documentary proof of purchase. Witness
says that the defendants are in possession of the documents. She
was un-married by the time of death of her father. She denied that
first defendant incurred expenditure for her marriage and
performed her marriage by taking responsibility and gave
Rs.40,000/- toward dowry. Witness volunteers that her mother
performed her marriage. Her mother has no property or source of
2024:APHC:34
AVRB,J
AS No.214/2019
16
income. She does not know whether Item Nos.1 and 2 are
government lands. She does not know whether first defendant
obtained D-form patta in respect of Item No.1 and also obtained
pattadar passbook and title deed and raised mango garden and
dug a bore well with his money. She does not know whether in
respect of Item No.2 second defendant’s father Suryanarayana
obtained D-form patta, raised mango garden and second
defendant has been enjoying the property. It is true that second
defendant has been cultivating Item No.2 and realizing the profits.
Item No.3 was purchased by her three brothers including first
defendant jointly. It is true that from the date of partition, first
defendant has been residing in his share of site covered under
Item No.3. He raised tiled house by paying house taxes and
electricity bills. She did not verify the pattadar passbook and title
deed of first defendant.
19. PW.2 in cross-examination deposed that he did not see any
registered document in the name of his father-in-law in respect of
Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties. He denied that
first defendant purchased the share of Raja Rao in Item No.3. He
does not know whether first defendant was granted D-form patta
in respect of Item No.1.
2024:APHC:34
AVRB,J
AS No.214/2019
17
20. Coming to the cross-examination of DW.1 nothing could be
elicited from his evidence so as to dispute the very documents
marked under Exs.B-1 to B-9.
21. As seen from Ex.B-1 – D-form patta in respect of Item No.1
of the plaint schedule property in the name of first defendant, it
was issued on 25.04.1986 by MRO, Nuziveedu. Curiously in the
grounds of Appeal, it is contended that Ex.B-1 was issued in the
year 2016. It is nothing but contrary to the contents of Ex.B-1. So,
the fact remained is that Ex.B-1 was issued in the name of first
defendant in respect of plaint schedule property on 25.04.1986.
Even own pleadings of the plaintiffs’ means that their father died
in the year 1983. So, it was after the death of their father the first
defendant was issued with Ex.B-1 in respect of Item No.1 of the
plaint schedule property. No piece of paper was filed by the
plaintiffs to show that their father was in possession of Item No.1
of the plaint schedule property. As this Court already pointed out,
the very pleadings of the plaintiffs that Madala Venkata Ratnam
had joint family properties with his sons and daughters is nothing
but vague. It is the say of first defendant that father of second
defendant i.e., his elder brother got Item No.2 of the plaint
schedule property by way of D-form patta. Unfortunately, it is a
2024:APHC:34
AVRB,J
AS No.214/2019
18
fact that defendant Nos.2 to 4 remained ex parte before the trial
Court. It is to be noted that the plaintiffs are heavily relying upon
Ex.A-1 pahani copy in respect of Fasli No.1422 in respect of Item
No.2 of the plaint schedule and further Ex.A-2 pahani copy in
respect of Fasli No.1422 for Item No.2 of the plaint schedule.
These are only the two documents on which the plaintiffs wanted
to succeed in the suit. They did not file any document in respect of
Item No.1 of the plaint schedule. It is to be noted that Fasli
No.1422 is relating to the year 2012-2013. It is rather surprising
to note that when Madala Venkata Ratnam died in the year 1983,
according to the plaint pleadings, he was shown as an enjoyer in
the year 2013 in respect of Item No.2 of the plaint schedule. On
this count itself no reliance can be placed upon Exs.A-1 and A-2.
Even otherwise, the name of Madala Venkata Ratnam was never
shown as a pattadar and his name was shown as enjoyer along
with Madala Suryanarayana in the year 2012-2013. So, when
Madala Venkata Ratnam was not alive in the year 2013 because
he was expired in the year 1983 even according to the pleadings of
the plaintiffs, specifically at Para No.2 of the plaint, plaintiffs
cannot support their contentions basing on Exs.A-1 and A-2. So,
merely because the defendant Nos.2 to 4 remained un-contested
before the trial Court, case of the plaintiffs cannot be upheld with
2024:APHC:34
AVRB,J
AS No.214/2019
19
regard to their entitlement in respect of Item No.2 of the plaint
schedule. In respect of Item No.1 is concerned, first defendant got
the rights by virtue of Ex.A-1 and he was granted with the same
on 25.04.1986 i.e., subsequent to the date of death of his father.
So, by standing on their own legs, plaintiffs miserably failed to
establish their contentions in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the
plaint schedule.
22. Turning to Item No.3 of the plaint schedule, there was no
dispute about the purchase of vacant site by first defendant, his
elder brother Suryanarayana and Raja Rao. First defendant
pleaded bundle of facts in the written statement explaining the
manner in which item No.3 of the plaint schedule was partitioned
and several changes thereafter in respect of application of passage
and construction of houses etc., Plaintiffs for obvious reasons
made a pleading in the plaint that there was no previous partition
effected in between the legal heirs of late Madala Venkata Ratnam.
During the course of cross-examination, PW.1 categorically
admitted certain things. During the course of cross-examination,
she deposed that it is true that in the year 1987 Item No.3 of
plaint schedule was partitioned among first defendant and his
deceased brothers Suryanarayana and Raja Rao. Raja Rao died
2024:APHC:34
AVRB,J
AS No.214/2019
20
un-married. She admitted that it was partitioned with east-west
bunds leaving 3 yards joint passage. She admitted that the road
facing site was separately divided among them for arranging
shops. It is true that from the date of partition, first defendant has
been residing in his share of site covered under Item No.3 raising a
tiled house by paying house taxes, electricity bills etc., So, the
admissions made by PW.1 in cross-examination goes to prove that
she did not plead true facts. Plaintiffs have shown Item No.3 of the
plaint schedule as vacant site but Item No.3 of the plaint schedule
are with certain structures. Plaintiffs did not make any pleading
that Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property was partitioned and
separate passages were shown and some houses are also
constructed. So, even the plaintiffs appear to have not revealed the
true facts in respect item No.3 of the plaint schedule. They did not
specify the proper location and extent of the so called share of
Raja Rao especially when Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property
has been with several changes including formation of passages,
cattle sheds and houses.
23. Coming to the decision of erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad in Mekala Pandu (1st supra), Larger Bench
of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, had an occasion to
2024:APHC:34
AVRB,J
AS No.214/2019
21
deal with the nature of rights which an assignee would get on
grant of assignment in respect of lands. Here, it has nothing to do
with the claim of the plaint schedule property because the
plaintiffs miserably failed to establish their contentions that their
father had rights over Item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule
property. It has nothing to do with the present facts of the case.
24. The High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad had an occasion to dealt with the factual scenario in
Akula Sangappa (2nd supra), wherein the Principal Junior Civil
Judge, Sangareddy dismissed the Suit filed for perpetual
injunction which was interfered with by the Principal District
Judge and ultimately on Second Appeal the High Court found fault
with the judgment of the learned Principal District Judge and
restored the judgment of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Sangareddy.
25. By relying upon the above two decisions, the plaintiffs
cannot boost their contentions in any way. In the light of the above
reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the
appellants/plaintiffs miserably failed to establish their interest
and rights so as to seek a decree for partition in respect of Item
Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint schedule property. Learned Additional
2024:APHC:34
AVRB,J
AS No.214/2019
22
District Judge, in my considered view, rightly commented against
the case of the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs did not present any
consistent case explaining as to how the plaint schedule property
was the joint family property. Having regard to the above, this
Court is of the considered view that absolutely there are no
grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Additional
District Judge.
26. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed with costs
confirming the decree and judgment, dated 16.11.2018, in O.S.
No.18 of 2014 on the file of the Court of XV Additional District
Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
Date: 03.01.2024
DSH
2024:APHC:34
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.