The necessity to provide evidence of entitlement to ancestral property and the importance of including all relevant parties in a partition suit.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'), is filed by the Appellants/Plaintiffs 1 and 2 challenging the decree and Judgment dated 14.09.2011 in O.S.No.89 of 2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Anantapur (for short, 'the trial court').

2. Appellants 1 and 2 are the Plaintiffs 1 and 2, who filed the suit in O.S.No.89 of 2010 seeking partition and separate possession of Plaintiffs 2/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties and for costs of the suit.

3. Referring to the parties hereinafter as arrayed in the suit is expedient to mitigate potential confusion and better comprehend the case.

4. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:

(a) Plaintiffs are the minor children of 1st Defendant, represented by their mother, Poola Vijaya. The 2nd Defendant is a 3rd party to the 1st Defendant’s family and the Plaintiffs. The plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of the Plaintiffs and 1st Defendant, and they are enjoying the same as undivided joint family members. Recently, disputes arose, and 1st Defendant is acting against the interest of the Plaintiffs’ share in the joint family properties, as he is addicted to bad vices and not at all looking after the welfare of the minors and wasting the income of the joint family for his vices. The Plaintiffs have become aware of the 1st Defendant allegedly creating nominal documents favouring the 2nd Defendant regarding the ancestral property, potentially causing financial harm to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs assert that any such documents if created, should not be legally binding on them. Despite multiple demands, the 1st Defendant has allegedly deferred the partition of the ancestral properties, citing various pretexts, even though he acknowledges the Plaintiffs' rightful share. Numerous panchayats (mediation meetings) have been convened to resolve the disputes, but they have been unsuccessful so far.

5. 1st Defendant remained exparte in the suit.

6. In the written statement, the 2nd Defendant refuted most of the Plaint's averments and contended that the 1st Defendant, his father Poola Narayana and his brother sold Ac.4.88 cents out of Ac.12.19 cents in S.No.151/1, which is item No.1 of suit schedule to 2nd Defendant under registered sale deed dated 25.03.2004; Subsequently, the 2nd Defendant claims to have divided item No.1 of the suit schedule property into plots and sold them to various purchasers, who are presently in possession and enjoyment of their respective portions. The 2nd Defendant further contended that these purchasers are necessary parties to the suit. The 1st Defendant's father, Poola Narayana, is asserted to be the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. As per the 2nd Defendant, Poola Narayana gifted Ac.1.53 cents in item No.3 and Ac.1.43 cents in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property to the 1st Defendant through a registered gift deed dated 08.02.2006. Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was allegedly sold by the 1st Defendant, his father, and brother to Nagaraju and Bala Krishna. These purchasers are said to have developed house plots and sold them to different individuals who are now in possession. Furthermore, the 1st Defendant purportedly sold item No.3 of the plaint schedule property to one Mahaboob Basha and an extent of Ac.0.77 cents in item No.4 to the 2nd Defendant under a registered sale deed dated 13.10.2010. The 2nd Defendant claims to possess and enjoy the said property. The 2nd Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs and their mother knew all these transactions. Additionally, the 2nd Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs filed the suit by suppressing material facts for wrongful gain and providing incorrect details of the plaint schedule items. The corrected details, as per the 2nd Defendant, are as follows: