IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Partition Suit – A Person who does not have a share in such property cannot be a party to a suit for partition.
(2) Nomenclature of document, whether it was a sale deed or family settlement deed or relinquishment deed or exchange deed is not material to consider whether document was admissible or not.

JUDGMENT (COMMON)

These two appeals are decided together as the parties are one and the same and they are interconnected.

2. A.S.No.139 of 2022 is filed by the appellants who were the defendants 1 to 7 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2022 passed in O.S.No.44 of 2018 by the learned I Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar.

3. O.S.No.44 of 2018 is a suit for partition filed by the respondents - plaintiffs.

4. A.S.No.156 of 2022 is filed by the appellants who were the plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2022 passed in O.S.No.108 of 2016 by the learned I Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar.

5. O.S.No.108 of 2016 is a suit for declaration, rectification of entries in the revenue record and injunction.

6. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants and respondents were legal heirs of late Chandoji. Late Chandoji had three sons by name Ramchanderji, Balram and Mohanlal and two daughters by name Jangamma and Laxmi Bai. The appellants in both the cases are the wife and children of Ramchanderji. Originally, the son of Balram by name Sajjanlal, son of Mohanlal by name Raju and daughter of late Chandoji by name Jangamma filed a suit for partition in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, claiming one-fourth share in the suit schedule properties shown as Ac.6-24 guntas each in Survey Nos.611 /1 and 611 /2, total Ac.13-08 guntas in the limits of Kadthal Village, Amangal Mandal of Mahabubnagar District, which was numbered as O.S.No.273 of 2006. Thereafter, the said suit was transferred to the I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar and re-numbered as O.S.No.44 of 2018. The wife and sons of Ramchanderji filed a suit for declaration of title with respect to Ac.6-24 guntas of land in Survey No.611 /2 of Kadthal Village and Mandal (erstwhile Amangal Mandal) of Mahabubnagar District (presently Rangareddy District) in the year 2016, which was tried as O.S.No.108 of 2016.

Pleadings in O.S.No.44 of 2016:

7. The case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.273 of 2006 (which was tried as O.S.No.44 of 2018) was that since 1964-65, late Chandoji and his sons Ramchanderji, Balram and Mohanlal along with daughter of late Chandoji by name Kamalikar Jangamma were cultivating the land bearing Survey No.611 to an extent of Ac.13-08 guntas on crop share basis till 1971-72. In the year 1972-73, the original pattadars of the said land have sold the said land to late Chandoji and his sons for nominal sale consideration, recognizing their previous services. As the common ancestor, late Chandoji became old, the patta of the said land was mutated in the names of Ramchanderji and Balram in the revenue records for convenience sake by assigning sub-division numbers as 611 /1 and 611 /2 to an extent of Ac.6-24 guntas each. Since 1972-73, the names of late Ramchanderji and late Balram were recorded as pattadars of the suit schedule lands in all the revenue records. The members of the joint family cultivated and enjoyed the suit schedule lands. During the course of time, their common ancestor late Chandoji and his three sons Ramchanderji, Balram and Mohanlal died. As the family went on enlarging due to marriages of the co-sharers, they separated in mess, but were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit lands. There was no physical partition of the suit schedule properties among the co-sharers. As the plaintiffs in O.S.No.44 of 2018 were experiencing difficulty in joint cultivation of the suit lands, they convened a meeting on 01.12.2006 before the elders of the village and called the defendants and demanded for partition of the suit schedule lands into four equal shares and for allotment of one such share to each of them. The defendants postponed the matter. Again on 25.12.2006, the plaintiffs demanded the defendants for physical partition of the suit lands. But the defendants bluntly refused taking advantage of recording their names in the revenue records as pattadars. The plaintiffs approached the