IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that heirs have rights to ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act, regardless of the timing of their ancestor's death, unless proven otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

K. SURENDER, J.

1. The appellants are defendants in the trial Court, who were unsuccessful in the trial Court and also the appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the present Second Appeal is filed. Hereafter, the parties will be referred to as in the trial Court.

2. The plaintiff filed suit for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in Acs.3.33 guntas of agricultural land in Sy. No. 345/A claiming that she is having right on 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property, which right accrued from her father. The defendants 1 and 2 are brothers of the father of the plaintiff. After filing the suit, written statements were filed by the 1st and 2nd defendants denying the share of the plaintiff stating that the father of the plaintiff died during police action in the year 1949 before Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. Further, the claim of the plaintiff is that her father and defendants 1 and 2, all three brothers had acquired the suit schedule property as joint family property. Further, according to the plaintiff, her father died in the year 1970 and her mother died prior to that. Since both the parents died, plaintiff was taken care of by her grandmother Lachamma and thereafter, by the 1died prior to that. Since both the parents died, plaintiff was taken care of by her grandmother Lachamma and thereafter, by the 1died prior to that. Since both the parents died, plaintiff was taken care of by her grandmother Lachamma and thereafter, by the 1st defendant, who is the paternal uncle.

3. The defendants 1 and 2 claimed that they succeeded the suit schedule property from their father, who is the grandfather of the plaintiff, as such, the plaintiff cannot claim her right since Hindu Succession Act 1956 was not in force at the time of death of the plaintiff’s father in 1949. Accordingly, the real facts were suppressed by plaintiff and also the suit undervalued.

4. After filing of written statement by the 1st and 2nd defendants, petition was filed to implead the defendants Nos.3 and 4. The 3rd defendant is the daughter of 1st defendant in whose favour the 1st defendant executed a gift deed in respect of Acs1.36 ½ guntas out of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the 3rd defendant sold the property in the name of the 4th defendant, which is M/s.Punnami Developers Private Limited. The trial Judge by orders dated 11.06.2006 permitted the defendants 3 and 4 to be impleaded.

5. Basing on the pleadings of plaintiff and defendants, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:

1. Whether the suit schedule land is available for partition?

2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

3. Whether the gift document No. 603/1998 executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 3 is binding on the parties?

4. Whether the registered sale deed document No. 276/2004 Executed by Defendant No. 3 in favour of Defendant No. 4 is sham and void document?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the partition and separate possession as prayed for?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree against the Defendants as prayed for?

7. To what relief?

6. Having considered both the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, the trial Court found that Ex.A1, certified copy of the khasra pahani for the year 1954-55 reflected name of the father of the plaintiff Chinnanolla Pentaiah as the pattadar who was the head of the joint family. Further, under Exs.A2 to A4, which are the pahanies for the year 1960-61, 70-71 and 75-76, the name of the plaintiff’s father was recorded as the pattadar. Exs.A1 to A4 were not disputed by the defendants. The name of the first and second defendants were reflected in the pahaies for the year from 1985-1986. Since the name of the father of the plaintiff was reflected till 1970-71, the trial Court found that the father of the plaintiff must have died during 1970 after the Hindu Succession Act came into force. Since the defendants failed to prove that the