Fraud must be specifically pleaded and proven to invalidate registered documents in partition disputes, and unsupported allegations do not suffice to reopen partitions.

JUDGMENT :

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J.

Heard the arguments of Sri Ch. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel assisted by Sri S.S.R. Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant No.1. Perused the material available on record.

2. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs in O.S. No.12 of 2013 in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, challenging the dismissal of the said suit, vide judgment and decree dated 11.06.2019.

3. The parties hereinafter referred to as per their nomenclature before the Trial Court for the sake of brevity.

4. Plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are wife and children of the deceased Goriparthi Nageswara Rao in O.S. No.12 of 2013. Defendant No.1 is the elder brother and defendant No.2 is the younger brother of deceased Goriparthi Nageswara Rao, and all of them were born to late Sri Goriparthi Venkanna and late Smt. Goriparthi Venkamma.

5. O.S. No.12 of 2013 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking for declaration and partition and to declare the partition deed, and settlement deed dated 27.06.2008 in respect of suit ‘A’ Schedule property and registered sale deed 25.04.2015 in respect of suit ‘B’ Schedule property as sham, collusive and fraudulent and non-binding on the plaintiffs. Also, with a further prayer for the partition of the suit schedule properties into three equal shares, and the subsequent allotment 1/27^th of share to the 1^st plaintiff, 1/9^th share to the 2^nd plaintiff and 1/27^th to the 3^rd plaintiff.

Brief case of the plaintiffs/appellants:

6. According to the plaintiffs, suit schedule properties belongs to the common ancestor of both the plaintiffs and defendants, namely Goriparthi Venkanna S/o Ramanaiah, who married Venkamma. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with three sons namely, 1.G.Srirammurthy, 2.G.Nageswara Rao, 3. G.Surya Rao. Plaintiffs are legal heirs i.e., wife and children of deceased G.Nageswara Rao, who passed away on 01.02.2011. Thus, the plaintiff filed suit for partition, arraying the two brothers of the deceased G.Nageswara Rao as defendants 1 and 2 for partition and also for delivery of separate possession. Plaintiff in the year 2018, through an amendment order dated 16.08.2018 vide I.A. No.620/2018, in the main plaint added the additional pleadings and also sought for declaration that registered settlement deeds dated 27.06.2008 & 25.04.2015 and registered partition deed dated 27.06.2008 as fraudulent, collusive, sham and nominal and nonest in the eye of law and not binding on the deceased G.Nageswara Rao and plaintiffs and that they are entitled for partition over the “suit schedule properties”.

7. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that their common ancestor G.Venkanna, purchased suit ‘A’ schedule property through registered sale deed dated 25.06.1960. The said common ancestor also built a house in an extent of 500 square yards in Peddaamiram village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District, which is suit ‘B’ schedule property. After the death of said G.Venkanna suit ‘A’ sch