Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.
Cheedella Radhakrishna Sharma and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Radhakrishnamurthy and Ors. - Respondents
Appeal Suit No. 436 of 1992
Decided On: 23.09.2014
Constitution of India – Civil Suit – Dismissal under – Suit for partition and possession – Reliefs sought in the plaint were for partition and separate possession declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/8th share each in the plaint schedule properties by meets and bounds and to put them in possession of the respective shares, for past profits of three years and also future profits that to be determined, for costs and for any other or alternative reliefs that are entitled in the facts and circumstances relevant part of the land at Velagaleru (item No. 7) was acquired by Government through land acquisition proceedings from respective shares of both of them and compensation paid individually, lands (item No. 2) being enjoyed separately viz., eastern half that fell to the share of the defendant and western half that fell to the share respectively, that till the year, 1975 respective shares of them were being cultivated by different tenants falsely claiming permanent tenancy over entire property and the defendant and his elder brother had to avoid severe battle to vindicate their rights in the two suits filed in O.S. Court and various interim applications were filed and orders passed and the matters went in appeals or revision, involved both the brothers to get financial loss, still appeal is pending in Senior Civil Judges Court –Held Coming to Item 3 of the plaint schedule, admittedly it was the government allotment in favour of the defendant- and on his application and for value, this item was not even impressed into the joint family properties and plaintiffs cannot claim for partition and as such the trial Courts decree and judgement in this regard no way requires interference even otherwise; "(ii) Coming to Item 6 of the plaint schedule-two shops viz., shop No. 50-fertilizer shop situated at Madhira and shop No. 61-fertilizer shop situated village concerned, the same belongs to the defendant, as such the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the Item-6 of plaint schedule from the defendant, much less for partition or accounting or any profits thereon and as such the trial Courts decree and judgement in this regard no way requires interference even otherwise; (iii) Coming to the Item No. 1-vacant site of 1200 square yards, plot Nos. 10 &11-situated at Burhanpuram area of town, in the same the defendant acquired title otherwise even and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the Item-1 of plaint schedule from the defendant, much less for partition or accounting or any profits thereon and as such the trial Courts decree and judgment in this regard no way requires interference even otherwise. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed." –Appeal is Allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the judgment:
1. Status of the Parties and Suit History * The suit was filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs (widow, four sons, and two daughters of late Cheedella Nagabushanam) against Cheedella Lakshmi Narasimha Rao (the sole defendant) in O.S. No. 60 of 1984. * The suit was dismissed by the trial court on 31.12.1991, and the plaintiffs appealed. * During the pendency of the appeal, several plaintiffs and the defendant died, and their legal representatives were brought on record. (!) (!) (!) (!)
2. Reliefs Sought * The plaintiffs sought partition and separate possession of 7 items of property listed in the plaint schedule. * They claimed entitlement to 1/8th share each in the properties, past profits for three years, and future profits. (!) (!)
3. Findings on Partition and Joint Family Status * The trial court held that there was no partition of joint family properties between the late Nagabushanam and the defendant in 1944. * The appellate court upheld this finding, ruling that the alleged oral partition of 1944 was untrue and set up fraudulently by the defendant to prolong the suit. * Evidence such as joint sale deeds (e.g., Ex. A.12, Ex. A.13) and lease letters (Ex. A.19 to Ex. A.28) proved that the brothers continued to hold and enjoy properties jointly even after 1944. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
4. Disposition of Specific Property Items * Item 3 (Government Allotment): Admittedly allotted in favor of the defendant; not impressed into joint family properties. Plaintiffs cannot claim partition. (!) (!) * Item 6 (Fertilizer Shops): Belong to the defendant; plaintiffs are not entitled to any share or accounting of profits. (!) (!) (!) * Item 1 (Vacant Site, 1200 sq. yards): The defendant acquired title otherwise (adverse possession). Although there was an account book entry (Ex. A.2) suggesting joint purchase, the defendant's long-standing exclusive possession and lack of response from Nagabushanam extinguished the plaintiffs' rights. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) * Item 5 (Agricultural Land, Yerrupalem): Purchased by Nagabushanam with his own funds (government teacher income). The defendant relinquished any claim, so it belongs exclusively to the plaintiffs. No partition required. (!) (!) (!) * Item 4 (Ancestral House, Yerrupalem): The plaintiffs are entitled to their half share as they are already in possession of that portion via a tenant. No further division needed. (!) (!) (!) * Item 7 (Agricultural Land, Velagaleru): Partially acquired by the government and partially sold by the defendant. The remaining extent (Ac. 1.09 and add) is allotted to the plaintiffs by equity. No further division needed. (!) (!) (!) * Item 2 (Land, Rayanpadu): The plaintiffs took possession of the western half (Ac. 8.96 cents) and the defendant the eastern half (Ac. 8.96 cents) tentatively after a tenancy litigation, but without proper metes and bounds demarcation. The court ordered the appointment of a Commissioner to demarcate and divide the property equally. (!) (!) [
B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.
1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs 1 to 7, who are no other than the widow, four sons and two daughters of late Cheedella Nagabushanam, in the suit O.S. No. 60 of 1984, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Khammam against Cheedella Lakshmi Narasimha Rao-sole defendant, which was since ended in dismissal on 31.12.1991, by impugning the same preferred the appeal.
1(a). The suit filed on 01.05.1984 before Vacation Court was transferred to regular Court, i.e., Senior Civil Judge's Court, Khammam. The reliefs sought in the plaint were for partition and separate possession declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/8th share each in the plaint schedule properties by meets and bounds and to put them in possession of the respective shares, for past profits of three years and also future profits that to be determined, for costs and for any other or alternative reliefs that are entitled in the facts and circumstances.
1(b). The plaint schedule consists of 7 items (which include the item-7 added as per orders in I.A. No. 352/1988), viz., item No. 1-vacant site of 1200 square yards, plot Nos. 10&11-situated at Burhanpuram area of Khammam town; item No. 2 -agricultural wet land in R.S. No. 77 measuring Ac.17.92 cents of Rayanpadu village, Krishna District; item No. 3-residential house bearing municipal No. 3-9-80 of Jahirapur area, Guttalbazar, Khammam town; item No. 4-residential house situated at Yerrupalem of Madhira Taluk; item No. 5-agricultural land of Sy. No. 266-Ac.0.07 gts, Sy. No. 262-Ac.0.33 gts, Sy. No. 194-Ac.1.34 gts & Sy. No. 263-Ac.1.06 gts of Yerrupalem village, Madhira Taluk; item No. 6-two shops viz., shop No. 50, fertilizer shop situated at Madhira & shop No. 61, fertilizer shop situated at Yerrupalem village of Madhira Taluk and item No. 7-agricultural land of Sy. No. 342/2/A-Ac.2.00 cts of Velagaleru village, Mylavaram Taluk, Krishna District.
2. Factual matrix of the matter before trial Court in nutshell is that:
"2(a). The averments in the plaint in brief are that, Lakshmi Narasimha Rao-(1st defendant) & late Nagabushanam-(father of plaintiffs 2 to 7 & husband of 1st plaintiff) are the two sons besides four daughters by name-Seetharamamma(died), Lalithamba (died), Kanakamma & Saradamba, of late Cheedella Radha Krishnaiah (genealogy-pedigree is shown in para-2 of the plaint). That, during life time of said Radha Krishnaiah, he performed the marriages of his 4 daughters (supra) and given properties to them and thereby they have no right to claim partition. That said Radha Krishnaiah and his two sons above named constituted Mitakshara joint family. Nagabushanam worked as a teacher and retired from service before he died, whereas Lakshmi Narasimha Rao had no service either private or Government and he was maintaining the joint family properties for the last 15 years and never shown any accounts to his elder brother-Nagabushanam, but for at one point of time, that too, prepared and shown false accounts as observed by Nagabushanam. That, on 02.12.1983 Nagabushanam had executed a Will (Ex. A.9) bequeathing his share in the joint family properties and self acquired properties to his wife and children and died testate on 09-01-1984. That, late Nagabushanam also mentioned in the Will that 1200 sq.yds site at Burhanpuram, Khammam town) was jointly purchased by him & Lakshmi Narasimha Rao for Rs. 1,000/- and paid his share-Rs. 500/- to Lakshmi Narasimha Rao; as was being a Government Servant permitted Lakshmi Narasimha Rao to obtain registered sale deed in his name. That, late Nagabushanam was in the habit of maintaining accounts in a separate book (Ex. A.1) and the entry therein dated 11.04.1950(Ex. A.2) also reveals the payment of Rs. 500/- to the defendant for the item No. 1-1200 square yards at Khammam purchased and thus the defendant-Lakshmi Narasimha Rao had no right to claim said item as
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
