Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
Meka Seshi Reddy and Others - Appellant
Vs.
Meka Puspavathi and Others - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL NO: 60/2018
Decided On : 16-04-2025
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Family Law - Partition of property - The second appeal concerns the partition of ancestral property and maintenance claims. The plaintiffs sought partition of properties and maintenance from the first defendant, who was found to have acted against the interests of the plaintiffs. (Paras 1-4, 10, 11)
(B) Joint Family Property - The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the party alleging the existence of a joint family. The plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that the property was acquired from ancestral funds, thus entitling them to a share. (Paras 18-20)
(C) Maintenance - The court ruled that the first plaintiff is entitled to maintenance from the first defendant, as the latter failed to provide evidence of self-acquisition of the property. (Paras 16, 21)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, a wife and son, sought partition of ancestral property and maintenance from the first defendant, who was accused of mismanaging the property. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, leading to an appeal by the defendants.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, confirming the plaintiffs' entitlement to a share in the property and maintenance.
Issues: The main issues included whether the property was joint family property and the validity of the maintenance claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs proved the property was acquired from ancestral funds, and the first defendant's actions were detrimental to their interests.
Result: The second appeal is dismissed.
Judgment :
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved by the Judgment and decree, dated 10.10.2017 in A.S.No.279 of 2012, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum- XII Additional District Guntur (“First Appellate Court” for short). The appeal in A.S.No.279 of 2012 is filed aggrieved by the Judgment and decree, dated 03.09.2012 in O.S.No.183 of 2009, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri (“Trial Court” for short) in respect of Item No.1 of the plaint 'A' schedule property. The second appeal is confined to Item No.1 of the plaint 'A' schedule property.
2. The appellants herein are the defendant Nos.2 & 4 to 8 and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs and 3rd respondent herein is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.183 of 2009, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.
3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.183 of 2009, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, with a prayer for partition of plaint „A‟ and „B‟ schedule properties into two equal shares and to allot one such share to the 2nd plaintiff and for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,000/- per annum from 1st defendant towards maintenance of 1st plaintiff by creating charge over the plaint schedule properties that may fell to the share of the 1st defendant.
4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, preliminarily decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in the above said suit filed A.S.No.279 of 2012, on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Guntur in respect of Item No.1 of plaint 'A' schedule property. The First Appellate Court dismissed the first appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant Nos.2, 4 to 8 in the suit approached this Court by way of second appeal.
5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.
6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.173 of 2015, is as follows:
The 1st plaintiff is wife, 2nd plaintiff is son of 1st defendant, 2nd defendant is elder brother, 3rd defendant, who is wife of 2nd defendant, is sister-in-law of 1st defendant. During pendency of the suit, 3rd defendant died. Consequently, defendant Nos.4 to 8 were brought on record being legal heirs of deceased-3rd defendant. The plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties got through inheritance, partition and acquisitions from the ancestral nucleus. In the partition that took place among father and his sons i.e., defendant Nos.1 and 2, plaint schedule properties fell to share of 1st defendant. The 1st defendant is committing acts of waste and is entering into some sham, nominal, collusive, null and void transactions, which are detrimental to the interest of plaintiffs, at the instance of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and has neglected and refused 1st plaintiff. Both the plaintiffs have constrained to file the suit.
7. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed written statements separately before the trial Court denying the averments in the plaint and the same is adopted by the 3rd defendant. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows:
The properties purchased in the names of plaintiffs are not shown in the schedule for considering and as such, the suit for partial partition of properties is not maintainable and the value of the property that stands in the name of 1st plaintiff is more than Rs.10 lakhs and therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance from 1st defendant. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 jointly purchased an extent of Ac.0-28 cents covered by D.No.164/1 of Penumaka village with their self-earnings. Subsequently, both defendant Nos.1 and 2 partitioned the said property and Item No.1 of plaint schedule property fell to share of 1st defendant. Having fallen that Item No.1 of plaint schedule is not convenient in enjoying of 1st defendant, he so
The court affirmed that property acquired from ancestral funds is joint family property, entitling the plaintiffs to a share and maintenance.
(1) Second Appeal – In a second appeal, High Court shall not reverse findings of both Courts below except under few situations.(2) Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 enables daughters to exercise....
The main legal point established is the application of Sec. 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, the exclusion of contrary evidence, and the principles of Hindu Law regarding co-parcenary property and....
The court ruled that properties devolved under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act are not ancestral and thus not subject to partition among coparceners.
The court affirmed that admissions made during trial are binding, and ancestral properties cannot be dismissed based on a registered Partition Deed that does not negate the rights of coparceners.
The court established that ancestral property retains its coparcenary character despite partition, affirming the rights of legitimate heirs under Hindu law.
The judicial presumption of joint ownership requires proof of a family nucleus, and mere existence of a joint family does not automatically classify all properties as joint.
The absence of evidence proving the joint family status of properties allows a presumption that they are individual assets; thus, plaintiffs' claim for partition is dismissed.
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
