Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.OBUL REDDY
Nannepuneni Seetharamaiah - Appellant
Versus
Nannepuneni Ramakrishnaiah - Respondent
Decided On : 02-24-69
PARTITION - PRIOR PARTITION - PROOF - UNREGISTERED DOCUMENTS - ADMISSIBILITY - FACTUM OF PARTITION - ORAL EVIDENCE - HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 25 AND 27 - DISQUALIFICATION FROM INHERITANCE - MURDER OF FATHER - CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 324, I.P.C. - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and possession of his 1/5th share in the joint family properties. The defendants resisted the suit contending that there was a prior partition and that the plaintiff was precluded from seeking partition. The plaintiff also filed cross-objections claiming a share in his father's estate, which was negatived by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the unregistered partition documents were inadmissible in evidence to prove the terms of the partition, but they could be relied upon to prove the factum of partition by oral evidence. The court found that there was a prior partition by metes and bounds and that the plaintiff had walked out with his share, accepting the allotment made by the elders. The court also held that the plaintiff was disqualified from inheriting his father's estate under Sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as he had participated in the murderous attack on his father, even though he was convicted under Section 324, I.P.C. due to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: 1. Whether the unregistered partition documents were admissible in evidence to prove the factum of partition? 2. Whether there was a prior partition by metes and bounds? 3. Whether the plaintiff was disqualified from inheriting his father's estate under Sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Unregistered partition documents are inadmissible in evidence to prove the terms of the partition, but they can be relied upon to prove the factum of partition by oral evidence. 2. The court found that there was a prior partition by metes and bounds and that the plaintiff had walked out with his share, accepting the allotment made by the elders, based on the oral evidence of the witnesses. 3. The court held that the plaintiff was disqualified from inheriting his father's estate under Sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as he had participated in the murderous attack on his father, even though he was convicted under Section 324, I.P.C. due to the benefit of doubt. The court reasoned that the disqualification under Section 25 does not require a conviction for murder, and that the plaintiff's participation in the attack on his father, which resulted in his death, was sufficient to disqualify him from inheriting.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the trial court were set aside, and the suit was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THIS appeal preferred by defendants is directed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Khan Original Suit No. 6 of 1962 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for partition and possession of his 1/5 share in Items 1 to 4 , 6 and 7 of plaint A schedule and Item 18 of plaint B schedule.
( 2 ) THE defendants 1 to 3 and the plaintiff are the sons of one Narayana, the 4th defendant is their mother and the 5th defendant is their sister. According to the plaintiff, he and the defendants 1 to 3 were members of a Hindu undivided joint family and therefore he is entitled to partition and separate possession of his share in the joint family properties. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending inter alia that there was a prior partition where under there was allotment of shares to each of the sharers and therefore the plaintiff is precluded form seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of his share. The Subordinate Judge held that there was no prior partition as set up by the defendants, and that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed only in respect of Items 1 to 4, 6 and 7 of plaint A schedule and Item 18 of plaint B schedule and passed a preliminary decreed accordingly.
( 3 ) MR. Y. Suryanarayana, appearing for the appellants, contended that the evidence on record amply bears out the case of the appellants that there was a prior partition in the year 1955 and that the plaintiff walked out of the family taking his share and as such this partition action is not maintainable. As the plaintiff has also claimed his right to inherit along with his brothers, hi fathers estate and as it was negatived by the Court below he has preferred the cross-objections. Mr. Suryanarayana contended that the plaintiff, being the murderer of this father, cannot inherit the estate of his father and as such he is not entitled to a share in his fathers property under Section 25 and 27 of the Hindu Succession Act.
( 4 ) MR. Madhava Rao, appearing for the respondent-plaintiff, contended that the plaintiff was not convicted for the offence of murder and therefore, he is not disqualified from inheriting his fathers property. It is next urged by Mr. Madhava Rao, that the Court below has rightly negatived the case of the appellants (defendants) as the partition documents Exts. B-1 and B-5 set up by them were found to be in admissible in evidence. Therefore, the main question or consideration is whether there was a prior partition in the year 1955, whereby the plaintiff was allotted share, which disentitles him from maintain the present action.
( 5 ) THE case of the plaintiff as unfolded in the plaint is that his father purchased the paint schedule properties with the moneis realised by sale of the ancestral properties situate in another village that the 1st defendant and others, who were inimically disposed towards him,, falsely implicated him in the case relating to the murder of this father in fathers property, that after he was released from jail, he made several demands asking his brothers to effect a partition and render account for the income realised form the join family properties and that as they failed to accede to this request, he was forced to lay action for partition and separate possession of his share.
( 6 ) IT is the specific case of the defendant that the join family status was disrupted by partition as far lack as in the year 1955 and a memorandum was drawn up evidencing physical partition According to them, the plaintiff, after obtaining his share, sold away an item of that property under an agreement of sale and that he had admitted the partition and sale of an item out of what fell to his share when examined by the Court of Session. Khammam, under Section 342 of the Criminal P. C. and therefore, the actions misconceived and not maintainable.
( 7 ) MR. Suryanarayana relied upon Exs. B-1 and B-5 and contended that they are only memoranda of the partition which was earlier effec
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
