Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J
Vukka Sujatha – Appellant
Versus
Mannuri Saradamma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 12-7-2018 in A.S.No.14 of 2017 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, YSR Kadapa District, partly allowing the Judgment and decree, dated 03-11-2015, in O.S.No.79 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.
2. The appellant herein is the 4th defendant, the 1st respondent is plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 are defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.79 of 2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.
3. The plaintiff, who is the mother of defendants 1 to 3, initiated action in O.S.No.79 of 2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, with a prayer for partition of the suit schedule properties into four equal shares and to allot one such share to her and also for declaration of registered sale deed dated 10-6-2008 executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the 4th defendant as invalid in law and not binding on the plaintiff.
4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, preliminarily decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful 4th defendant in the above said suit filed A.S.No.14 of 2017,
The sale deed executed by defendants in favor of the 4th defendant was invalid to the extent of the plaintiff's undivided share in the property.
A valid oral partition must be substantiated with evidence; unproven claims lead to invalidation of subsequent property transactions.
The court emphasized that evidence cannot be adduced contrary to the arguments in a written document and held that the relief of partition cannot be granted in the face of a document registered lawfu....
The burden to prove title in a property dispute lies with the plaintiff, requiring evidence such as a registered sale deed, even when seeking alternative relief of possession.
In property disputes, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish ownership through valid documentation, and appellate courts uphold concurrent findings unless legally erroneous.
The court reaffirmed that a sale deed executed for family and legal necessity by a joint family member is binding, barring challenge by family members after significant delay without sufficient cause....
The sale deed executed without legal necessity and consideration does not bind the joint family properties, affirming the plaintiffs' entitlement to a share.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs' claims over certain properties were invalid due to prior sales, emphasizing the necessity of declarations regarding property ownership in joint familial contexts ....
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
