IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of establishing joint family property and the need to satisfactorily explain inordinate delay in filing an appeal, as per Sec. 96 of CPC and Sec. 51 of the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA J. - Heard Sri Krishna Mohan Sikharam, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel represented Sri B. Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.507 of 2018 dtd. 5/3/2018 on the file of Court of XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, the appellant filed this appeal suit.

3. The plaintiffs are the grandchildren of Late Laxmiah and Late Pentiah, who were both pattedars of the agricultural land in question. In 1970, Late Pentiah sold his share in the land to Late Laxmiah, who then became the absolute owner of the entire property. The annual yield from the land was given to the plaintiffs' father, Late Ramchander, who was a government servant. Late Ramchander died, leaving behind the plaintiffs and the respondents as his legal heirs. The plaintiffs were minors at the time of his death, so they never interfered with the affairs of the property. The eldest son, Respondent No. 10, was looking after the property and is currently in occupation of it. On January 15, 2008, the plaintiffs demanded a partition of the property from their mother, respondent No.1. She gave them an evasive reply, so the plaintiffs made inquiries and found out that the defendants had colluded to alienate the property by executing a forged sale deed in the name of Late Ramchander. The plaintiffs argue that the sale deed is forged and fabricated, and that even if it were genuine, it would only be binding to the extent of Late Ramchander's share in the property. They also argue that the defendants have executed further sale deeds in collusion with other people, and that all of these sale deeds are liable to be cancelled.

4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues.

1. Whether the suit schedule property is joint family property of plaintiffs and D1 and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek partition of the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary decree as prayed for?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim cancellation of sale deeds as prayed for ?

4. whether the sale deeds executed by the Ramachander, P. Ramdas and I. Ramachandra Reddy are binding on the plaintiffs? 5. To what relief?

5. On behalf of plaintiff, 2 witnesses were examined and 31 documents were marked. On behalf of defendant, 3 witnesses were examined and 13 documents were marked.

6. On analyzing the evidence on record, the trial Court held that as the plaintiffs failed to establish that as on the date of filing of the suit, the suit schedule property is intact and it is the joint family property of plaintiffs, defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 10, as such they are not entitled for partition of the said property and also not entitled for cancellation of the sale deeds bearing document Nos.1629 of 1995 dtd. 23/11/1995, 3668 of 1996 dtd. 31/10/1996, 3669 of 1996 dtd. 31/10/1996 and 3361 of 1997 dtd. 13/12/1997 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, plaintiffs are in appeal. As there is delay in filing the appeal, the appellants filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 to condone the delay. The appellants/plaintiffs submit that there is delay of 355 days in filing the present appeal. The delay is caused in view of receiving the certified copies of judgment and decree on 27/11/2018 and also death of plaintiff No.4 during the pendency of the suit.

8. Respondent No.9 filed counter by submitting that even according to the applicants, he received the certified copy of the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.507 of 2008 on 27/11/2018 but claim ignorance for not pursuing it with their counsel till February, 2020 and it is strange to state that they have realised that the appeal was not filed before this Hon'ble Court just before Covid pandemic struck. It is further submitted that the applicants went to the extent of taking benefit of death of plaintiff No.4