Closure of Original Partition Suit Nullifies Final Decree Appeal: Telangana High Court

Telangana High Court Disposes of Appeal Against Final Decree as Original Partition Suit Closed

Hyderabad, Telangana – The Telangana High Court, comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar , has disposed of an Original Side Appeal (O.S.A. No. 1 of 2024) challenging a final decree order related to a decades-old partition suit, C.S. No. 7 of 1958. The appeal was filed by appellants, claiming to be legal heirs of Defendant No. 4 in the original suit, against a final decree passed in favour of respondents, namely Anish Construction Co and My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society, in Application No. 837 of 2013.

Background: A Suit Decades in the Making

The case originates from C.S. No. 7 of 1958, a suit for partition and separate possession of the Matruka properties of Late Nawab Moinduddowla Bahadur of Paigah Asmajahi. A preliminary decree was passed in 1959. The current appeal arises from a final decree order dated 19.09.2013, obtained by the respondents/petitioners concerning land in Shamshiguda Village, Ranga Reddy District.

Allegations of Fraud and Misrepresentation

The appellants contended that the final decree was obtained by fraud and gross misrepresentation of facts and law. They argued that the decree was passed without proper notice to them and was based on unregistered documents, including an Assignment Deed and a Conveyance Deed. The appellants further highlighted that an earlier execution proceeding (E.P. No. 38/2002) related to the same property had been set aside by a Division Bench of the High Court in 2003, a fact they claimed was suppressed.

Key grounds raised by the appellants included:

• Fraudulent Decree: The final decree was illegal, fraudulent, and based on misrepresentation.
• Lack of Notice: Affected parties, including the appellants, were not notified about the application for the final decree.
• Invalid Documents: The decree was based on unregistered Assignment and Conveyance Deeds, violating registration laws.
• Suppression of Facts: The respondents allegedly suppressed the fact that earlier execution proceedings related to the property had been set aside.
• Scheme of Partition Disregarded: The final decree allegedly disregarded the scheme of partition approved by the High Court, which had allotted shares to defendants in scattered bits, not as a single unit as claimed in the final decree.

Court's Observation and Decision

The High Court, after hearing arguments and perusing the material, focused on a significant development: the closure of the original suit, C.S. No. 7 of 1958, by a Division Bench order dated 09.01.2025. The Division Bench in the closed suit had observed that "no lands are available for partition in item Nos.230 to 254 of Schedule ‘A’ attached to the preliminary decree," which includes Item No. 252, the subject property of this appeal.

The judgment explicitly quotes the earlier Division Bench order closing C.S. No. 7 of 1958:

> “As such, the submissions made on behalf of the objectors are unsustainable and in that view of the matter, it can safely be concluded that no lands are available for partition in item Nos.230 to 254 of Schedule ‘A’ attached to the preliminary decree. In the absence of preliminary decree for item Nos.230 to 254 in Schedule ‘A’, no final decree could have been passed. Therefore, reports filed earlier are without proper verification, are fictitious and the same are treated as nullity and are hereby rejected.”

Based on the closure of the original suit and the finding that no lands were available for partition in Item No. 252, the court concluded that "no further adjudication is required in this appeal."

Final Order and Implications

Ultimately, the Telangana High Court disposed of O.S.A. No. 1 of 2024, leaving it open for the parties to pursue other legal remedies if they remained aggrieved. The court made no order regarding costs.

This decision effectively nullifies the appeal against the final decree, not by directly addressing the allegations of fraud, but on the procedural ground that the underlying partition suit itself has been closed and determined to have no remaining property for partition in the specified items. The parties' rights concerning the property may need to be litigated afresh in appropriate proceedings, as indicated by the court's decision to leave other remedies open.