Point of law: A reading of the said provision makes it amply clear that the said provision comes into play only when an outsider, who is not a member of the family, acquires a share in a property and initiates proceedings for partition of the property. In that case, any of the family members can undertake to purchase the share of such outsider and the Court shall, after valuation, direct the sale of the share of the outsider to the family member/s. In the present case, the plaintiff had already initiated a suit for partition even before the 3rd defendant had purchased the property. Section 4 of the partition is obviously not applicable to the case.

Headnote:
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 - Partition Act - Section 4 - Plaintiff has appeared and argued his case as party in person – Property – Partition – Sale – Possession - One has appeared for defendant -There is no representation for remaining defendants – One had three sons, viz., plaintiff and defendants and daughters - One daughter is said to have committed suicide and another daughter has been missing for quite some time - Remaining six daughters are arrayed as defendants - Said one and his wife had acquired the suit schedule property by way of a deed of sale which was marked - Wife of said one had passed and said one passed away - Suit schedule property, consists of a RCC slab building with ground floor and floor - Plaintiff had filed O.S. on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge for partition of the suit schedule property, between himself and defendants 1 and 2 only - While this suit was pending, defendants had executed a sale deed conveying suit schedule property to defendant by way of a deed of sale - Whether plaintiff is entitled to consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants their men and agents from ever interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.
Finding of the court :
Trial Court accepted the contention of plaintiff that sale of property was done to harm his interests and therefore requires to be set aside - It is true that these two documents show as if the entire schedule property has been purchased by defendant - Explanation given by defendant, as to why he had accepted such a document while claim of plaintiff remain outstanding, is that he was shown a newspaper notice issued by Late said one disowning the plaintiff and consequently he was advised that the said claim of plaintiff need not be taken into account - In view of the filing of the suits and the declaration of interests of plaintiff in property, no harm would be caused to the plaintiff by transactions - In the circumstances, it would suffice to hold that the deed of sale and deed of settlement would only convey the right title and interest of defendants and the right and interest of defendant is restricted to the right and interest of defendants.
Result: Petition partly allowed

JUDGMENT :

These two appeals arise out of a common judgment in O.S.Nos.54 of 2005 and 84 of 2003 in the Court of IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, dated 31.10.2006 and as such they are being disposed of together. The parties in these appeals are the same. However for ease of convenience, the parties are being referred to as they were arrayed in O.S.No.54 of 2005.

2. The plaintiff has appeared and argued his case as party in person. Sri Challa Dhananjay has appeared for the 3rd defendant. There is no representation for the remaining defendants.

3. Late Sri Grandhi Suryarao had three sons, viz., the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2, and 8 daughters. One daughter is said to have committed suicide on 10.02.1997 and another daughter has been missing for quite some time. The remaining six daughters are arrayed as defendants 4 to 9. Late Sri G. Suryarao and his wife had acquired the suit schedule property by way of a deed of sale dated 10.08.1966, which was marked as Ex.A.2. The wife of Sri G. Suryarao had passed away earlier in the year 1994 and Sri G. Suryarao passed away on 18.06.1998. The suit schedule property, consists of a RCC slab building with ground floor and 1st floor, is situated in 180 sq. yards of land bearing D.No.46-15-9 of Dondaparthy village Division No.31 of Visakhapatnam. The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.369 of 2003 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for partition of the suit schedule property, between himself and defendants 1 and 2 only. While this suit was pending, the defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 8 had executed a sale deed conveying the suit schedule property to the 3rd defendant by way of a deed of sale dated 19.08.2003. Subsequently, the 9th defendant had executed a supplementary deed in favour of the 3rd defendant on 06.09.2003. This sale and supplementary deed were assailed and challenged by the plaintiff, by way of O.S.No.84 of 2003. Later O.S.No.369 of 2003 was transferred to the District Court and renumbered as O.S.No.54 of 2005 for joint trial to be heard along with O.S.No.84 of 2003.

4. The case of the plaintiff in both the suits is that the property is joint family property of the coparcenery of late Sri G. Suryarao and only the sons of late Sri G. Suryarao would be entitled to a share in the property. This would mean that the property would have to be divided into three parts, viz., the plaintiff, the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant herein. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the sale of the suit schedule property in favour of the 3rd defendant by way of the initial deed of sale dated 19.08.2003 and the supplementary deed dated 06.09.2003 requires to be set aside as the said sale has been carried out to cause unlawful loss to the plaintiff by the other family members of the plaintiff who were not entitled to dispose of the suit property, which was already the subject matter of O.S.No.54 of 2005.

5. The defendants filed their written statements contending that the property is the self acquired property of their father and that all the sons and daughters of late Sri G. Suryarao would have equal shares in the said property. The 3rd defendant took the stand in both the cases that the purchase made by the 3rd defendant is a genuine and bona fide transaction and it does not take away any right of the plaintiff.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court formulated the following issues in both the suits.

7. In O.S.No.54 of 2005 the following issues and additional issue were settled:

1. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary co-sharers as parties to the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share or 1/9th share in the plaint schedule property?

3. To what relief?

Additional Issue:

1. Whether the plaintiff is ousted from the family of the father of plaintiff, if ousted, what is the effect?

In O.S.No.84 of 2003 the following issues were settled:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(AP) 605

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATIR. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.Grandhi Veera Venkata Satya Jagannadha Gupta, S/o. Late G. Surya Rao - AppellantVersusGrandhi Sreerama Murthy, S/o. late Surya Rao & Ors. – RespondentsA.S.Nos.81 and 424 of 2007Decided on : 16-11-2021

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
Grandhi Veera Venkata Satya Jagannadha Gupta, S/o. Late G. Surya Rao - Appellant
Versus
Grandhi Sreerama Murthy, S/o. late Surya Rao & Ors. – Respondents
A.S.Nos.81 and 424 of 2007
Decided on : 16-11-2021