Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 1081
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Subba Reddy Satti, J.
A. Nirmala – Appellant
Versus
A. Kasthuri & Ors. – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 30 of 2020
Decided On : 29-08-2022
T.C. Krishnan, Advocate, for the Appellant
Properties inherited by a person from his father's father become only his self-acquired property, and the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove that the plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties and that the registered sale deeds are sham and nominal.
Headnote:
ANCESTRAL PROPERTY - SETTLEMENT DEED - SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY - BURDEN OF PROOF - PARTITION SUIT - EVIDENCE - INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS - LEGAL PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for partition of ancestral properties, claiming that the properties were settled by her grandfather in favor of her father under a registered settlement deed and that the properties purchased by the 3rd defendant from her father were nominal and sham documents. The trial court and the lower appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that the properties settled by the grandfather were the separate properties of the father and that the plaintiff failed to prove that the sale deeds were nominal documents.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are based on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence as also the legal aspects. No questions of law much less substantial questions of law involved in the second appeal warranting interference under Sec 100 CPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the properties settled in favor of the father by the grandfather would be treated as ancestral properties or as separate properties of the father? 2. Whether the plaintiff discharged the burden of proof to establish that the plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties and that the registered sale deeds in the name of the 3rd defendant are sham and nominal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Property inherited by a person from his father, father's father or father's great grandfather or property allotted at a partition, is his ancestral property. However, property which a son inherits from his father's father becomes only his self-acquired property. 2. The plaintiff failed to establish that the properties gifted to her father were treated as joint family properties. No pleading or evidence regarding blending of properties acquired by the father under the settlement deed with other properties was presented. 3. The plaintiff failed to prove that the registered sale deeds in the name of the 3rd defendant are sham and nominal. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove that the plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties and that the registered sale deeds are sham and nominal.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage, holding that no questions of law much less substantial questions of law involved in the second appeal warranting interference under Sec 100 CPC.
JUDGMENT
Subba Reddy Satti, J. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 42 of 2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur filed the above second appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this judgment are referred to as they were arrayed in the plaint.
3. Plaintiff filed suit O.S. No. 42 of 2006 seeking partition of plaint schedule properties. Plaintiff and 2nd defendant are daughters of late Anandaiah and 1st defendant. 3rd defendant is sister of said Anandaiah and 4th defendant is her husband. Defendants 5 and 6 are followers of defendants 3 and 4.
4. In the plaint, it was contended inter alia that Anandaiah died on 23.07.2005 leaving behind plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 as his legal heirs; that plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same along with late Anandaiah; that defendants 3 and 4, sister and brother-in-law of late Anandaiah, taking advantage of his vices, causing lot of troubles and creating several nominal documents; that the plaintiff is not aware of the nominal documents; that Anandaiah had no exclusive right to execute any document; that the plaintiff got married in the year 1998 and started residing at Chennai with her husband; that late Anandaiah, is under the control of defendants 3 and 4, never cared to look after the welfare of plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 and that defendants 1 and 2 joined hands with defendants 3 and 4 to deprive the rights of the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff filed the suit for partition of plaint schedule properties into three equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff by metes and bounds and also to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering or dispossessing plaintiff's joint possession of the plaint schedule properties.
5. Two items are shown in plaint schedule. Item No. 1 consists of different extents of land in different survey numbers, in total Ac. 4.76 cents of land along with RCC roofed shed, coconut trees, three bore wells, three 7.5 HP motors with electricity service connections. Item No. 2 is RCC building bearing Door No. 8-141.
6. 2nd Defendant filed written statement and supported the case of the plaintiff.
7. 3rd Defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by defendants 4 to 6. In the written statement, it was contended inter alia that an extent of Ac. 0.18 cents in S. No. 243/3 and well, pipes and service connection and shed with 3 HP motor; Ac. 0.65 cents in S. No. 243/2; Ac. 0.80 cents in S. No. 243/8, Ac. 0.65 cents in S. No. 243/9, Ac. 0.10 cents in S. No. 243/4, Ac. 0.21 cents in S. No. 243/6, Ac. 0.17 cents in S. No. 243/7, Ac. 0.11 cents in S. No. 243/12, Ac. 0.10 cents in S. No. 243/13, Ac. 0.43 cents in S. No. 243/14 and Ac. 0.34 cents in S. No. 243/15 shown in item No. 1 of plaint schedule are the self-acquired properties of late Anandaiah; that on 06.07.1988 and 05.10.1990 the said Anandaiah sold the properties in favour of 3rd defendant for necessities and family expenses under a registered sale deed; that 3rd defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same; that Ac. 0.72 cents in S. No. 241/2, Ac. 0.31 cents in S. No. 242/7 in item No. 1 of plaint schedule belonged to N. Rajappa Naidu, N. Jayachandran, N. Gopal, N. Devarajulu and N. Kesavulu, who in turn sold the said properties to 3rd defendant under a registered sale deed dated 13.12.1993 along with Ac. 0.38 cents in S. No. 242/8; that the revenue authorities issued pattadar pass book and title deed after due enquiry; that item No. 2 of plaint schedule belonged to A.R. Adam Sahib; that after his death, his sons A.R. Jailabuddin, A.R. Samsudeen, A.R. Shalaludeen sold away the said property in favour of 3rd defendant under a registered sale deed dated 22.12.1993; that the plaintiff in collusion with defendants 1 and 2 filed the above suit; that the suit is barred by limitation and eventually, prayed to dismiss the suit.
8. Basing on the pleadings of res
