IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of blending of individual's property into joint family property and the reliance on admission as substantive evidence.

JUDGMENT :

This Appeal by Defendant Nos. 1 & 5, father & son seeks to lay a challenge to the judgement & Decree dated 18.12.2015 whereby the partition suit in O.S.No.2697/2010 filed by first Respondent-Smt. Nirmala has been decreed. Their operative portion reads as under:

“Suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. The plaintiff is entitled to get 1/6th share in the suit properties by metes and bounds along with mesne profits.

Separate enquiry is to be held regarding mesne profits.

Draw preliminary decree accordingly.”

2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

(a) One Smt.Eramma W/o Thimmaiah had bought suit properties vide registered sale deeds dated 10.4.1944, 10.6.1950 and 12.7.1953. Copies of these sale deeds are sought to be produced in the Appeal with leave of the Court vide Appellants’ Application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which merits to be allowed for the limited purpose of deciding the nature of property i.e., whether they are ancestral or otherwise, there being no serious objections from the side of Respondents herein.

(b) Smt.Eramma had two sons namely Mr.Narayana Reddy i.e., the first Defendant (Appellant No.1 herein) and Mr.Ramaiah. She had a daughter too namely Smt.Munithayamma. There was a family partition vide registered deed dated 27.7.1970 (Ex.P.5) whereby, these properties were partitioned between the children, Rs.1,000/-having been given to Smt.Eramma as her share. Suit properties are those that had fallen to the share of Mr.Narayana Reddy.

(c) Mr.Narayana Reddy has one son i.e., Defendant No.5 in the suit who happens to be Appellant No.2 herein and four daughters, as well; 1st Respondent herein who was the Plaintiff is one of them. Other daughters happen to be the Respondents in this Appeal and they were Defendants in the subject suit for partition. Only the 1st Appellant had filed the Written Statement and the learned Trial Judge had framed the following three principal issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that, the suit schedule property is joint family property?

(ii) Whether the defendants prove that, the plaintiff has taken amount as her share and attested as a witness to the Sale Deed executed by him?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for reliefs as sought for?

(d) From the side of Plaintiff, she got herself examined as PW.1 and in her deposition, as many as seven documents came to be marked as exhibits P.1 to P.7. They comprised of undisputed Genealogical Tree, revenue documents, Partition Deed of 1970, Encumbrance Certificates and Sketch. From the side of Defendants, the 2nd Appellant got examined as DW.1; in his deposition, as many as nine documents came to be marked as per Exhibits D1 to D9. These documents comprised of four Gift Deeds, one Sale Deed, one Rectification Deed, one Mortgage Deed and two GPAs.

(e) The learned Trial Judge having considered pleadings of the parties and weighed both the oral and documentary evidence, has entered the subject judgement & decree that are put in challenge by the Defendant Nos.1 & 5 who happen to be the father and son. The learned Judge in his wisdom treated the subject properties as being ancestral ones and therefore, all the grandchildren of Smt.Eramma are entitled to a share. In the absence of a Counter Claim or the like, 1/6th share has been granted to the Plaintiff alone.

3. SUBMISSION OF APPELLANTS:

(a) Learned counsel appearing for Appellants vehemently argues that the properties having been bought by Smt.Eramma, she was the absolute owner thereof and she was in the exclusive possession. Because of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she had full ownership over these properties vide TULASAMMA vs. SESHA REDDI (DEAD) BY L.Rs, AIR 1977 SC 1944. Even after the partition of 1970, these properties do not bear the character of ancestral acquisition; the shares allotted to the 1st Appellant Mr.Narayana Reddy being his separate property, the suit for partition would not lie. This aspect having been lost sight of, th