In a partition suit, the burden of proof lies on the claimant to substantiate familial ties and entitlement to property; failures in evidentiary requirements lead to dismissal of claims.

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short "the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellant/plaintiff challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 06.08.2003, in O.S.No.55 of 1996 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, [for short "the trial Court’]. The Respondents herein are the defendants in the said Suit.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.55 of 1996 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni.

3. Originally, the appellant/plaintiff herein filed the suit in O.S.No.55 of 1996 against defendant Nos.1 to 3, seeking for partition of the plaint schedule properties into two halves and to allot one such share to the plantiff.

4. Both parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

5. The case of the appellant/plaintiff as per the plaint averments in O.S.No.55 of 1996, in brief, is as follows:

The plaintiff is the son of D. Hanuma Reddy, the defendant No.1 is his stepmother, and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are his step sisters. The plaintiff pleaded that he, his mother, and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are living jointly and Hanuma Reddy is managing the joint family properties. While so, on 17.01.1993, the said Hanuma Reddy died and after his death, differences had arisen between the parties and the plaintiff demanded his separate share, for which the defendants had agreed in the presence of the elders, but they are postponing doing the same. The plaintiff further pleaded that on 12.01.1996, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant No.2 for which the defendant No.2 had given a false reply and did not come forward for partition of the schedule property, as such the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit.

6. The case of the defendant No.1 as per the written statement filed by the defendant No.1, which was adopted by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 is as follows:

The defendant No.1 pleaded that the plaintiff has to prove that Jayasree is the legally wedded wife and the plaintiff is the son of late Hanuma Reddy. The defendant No.1 pleaded that the plaintiff and Jayasree are strangers to the family of Hanuma Reddy, the said Hanuma Reddy is the husband of the defendant No.1, and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the daughters of the defendant No.1 and Hanuma Reddy. The defendant No.1 further pleaded that she and her daughters, i.e., the defendant Nos.2 and 3, are the only legal representatives of late Hanuma Reddy and due to the differences, Hanuma Reddy and the defendants have effected partition in respect of the properties fallen to the share of Hanuma Reddy under the registered partition deed dated 19.02.1971. The defendant No.1 further pleaded that since the date of partition, the defendants are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property and they have sold some lands to third parties and surrendered Ac.17.64 cents of land under the Land Ceiling Act. The defendant No.1 further pleaded that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 have taken one share each by oral partition and the pattadar passbooks were also issued in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and they are paying the land revenue and they have perfected their title by adverse possession. Therefore, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit with co