The validity of a family partition deed is upheld unless proven otherwise, and the burden of proof lies on the party challenging its authenticity.

JUDGMENT:

T MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. The Appellant/Plaintiff filed this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.') against the Judgment and decree, dated 29.03.2010 passed in A.S. No.122 of 2000 on the file of VIII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Chittoor (for short, 'the 1st Appellate Court') reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 05.06.2000 passed in O.S. No.320 of 1994 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor (for short ‘the trial Court’).

2. The Appellant/1st Respondent is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.320 of 1994 seeking to pass a preliminary decree for division of plaint schedule properties into two equal shares by taking into account the good and bad qualities and to allot one such share to the Plaintiff.

3. It is expedient to refer to the parties as they are initially arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.320 of 1994 to mitigate 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) The 1st Defendant, the Plaintiff's younger brother, and their father, K. Ramaiah Naidu, were originally living together. The joint family properties were divided in 1989 under a registered partition deed, with the plaint schedule properties allotted to their father. As per the deed, the father had limited rights to enjoy the income from these properties but no right to alienate them. Upon the father's death, the properties were to be divided equally between the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant.

(b) The Plaintiff filed a suit (O.S.No.330 of 1990) for a permanent injunction, preventing the 1st Defendant and their father from alienating the properties. The suit is still pending. The 1st Defendant, exploiting their father's declining health, attempted to fabricate documents to alienate the properties in his favour or that of Defendants 2 to 4. After the father's death in 1993, the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant jointly possessed the properties, following the partition deed's terms. However, the 1stDefendant continued to make attempts to alienate the properties and deprive the Plaintiff of his rightful share. Despite efforts for an amicable division through a mediator, the 1st Defendant refused to divide the properties. The Plaintiff, fearing further attempts to alienate the properties, filed this suit.

5. Denying the Plaintiff’s allegations, the 1st Defendant asserted in the written statement that the Plaintiff filed O.S.No.333 of 1990 seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the 1st Defendant and their father from alienating properties, and also filed I.A.No.576 of 1990 for temporary injunction. The 1st Defendant contested the suit, and the injunction petition was dismissed on merit with conditions. The Plaintiff played a significant role in securing the partition deed dated 23.07.1989, including procuring the attestors and scribe, who are allegedly his associates. The 1st Defendant claims the Plaintiff fraudulently inserted a restraint clause into the partition deed just before registration, without their knowledge or consent, to limit their father's enjoyment of his share of properties. The 1st Defendant further asserts that their father never intended such a limitation. In his counter- affidavit in I.A.No.576 of 1990, their father declared that the Plaintiff or his successors were not entitled to inherit his properties. On 20.03.1992, in a sound state of mind, their father executed an unregistered will in the 1st Defendant’s favor, bequeathing his properties. The will, witnessed by their mother and another attestor, was handed over to the 1st Defendant, and their father passed away on 09.09.1993. This will be considered their father’s last testament, confirming the 1st Defendant as the rightful heir. The 1st Defendant denies that the Plaintiff is in joint possession of the property or that he has created false documents in favor of Defendant