IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
K Sriramulu, S/o Chinna Nagamma – Appellant
Versus
B Janakamma, w/o B. Ayyanna – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 14-9-2018 in A.S.No.34 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District, confirming the judgment and decree dated 01-5-2008 in O.S.No.717 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool.
2. The appellant herein is the 2nd defendant, the 1st respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 and 3 are defendants 1 and 3 in O.S.No.717 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.717 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, with a prayer for partition and separate possession of 1/8th share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties and for costs of the suit.
4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, decreed the suit with costs, by passing a preliminary decree granting 1/8th share in the suit schedule properties to the plaintiff. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful 2nd defendant in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal suit before the first appellate Court. The learned I Additional District Judge, Ku
In matters of partition, proof of ancestral property entitlement and the absence of substantial legal questions are critical for appeal outcomes.
A second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC can only be admitted if substantial questions of law arise; in this case, no such questions were found.
The High Court's review under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is restricted to substantial questions of law, with no interference allowed on factual findings absent error.
The possession of property by a co-owner does not amount to adverse possession against other co-owners unless clear ouster is proven.
The High Court's jurisdiction in a second appeal is limited to substantial questions of law, with no re-appraisal of factual findings made by lower courts; the burden of proof for joint family proper....
A second appeal under Section 100 of CPC requires substantial questions of law; mere disagreements with lower court findings do not suffice.
The court emphasized the importance of the limitation period for filing partition suits and considered the legal status of ancestral properties in determining the entitlement of shares.
The High Court's review under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law and does not allow re-evaluation of factual findings made by lower courts.
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 upheld the entitlement of the plaintiff's share in ancestral properties and directed the determination of her legal heirs and the validity of her Will before distribution.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.