SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Telangana) 537

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
M.G. PRIYADARSINI, J.
G.Peter – Appellant
Versus
Sri. G.Allen – Respondent
Second Appeal Nos.94 of 2009, 1332 1336, 1357 of 2008
Decided on : 23-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : ALLAM RAMESH
For the Respondent: G POORNASRI

IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof in partition suits lies with the plaintiff to establish joint family property, while unregistered sale agreements do not confer title and are inadmissible as evidence.

Headnote:

(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 54 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Admissibility of unregistered sale agreements – The court examined the admissibility of Ex.B1, an unregistered sale agreement, in the context of property title disputes, emphasizing that such documents do not confer title and must be registered to be valid. (Paras 18, 51, 54)

(B) Partition Suit – Burden of Proof – The plaintiff must establish that the property is joint family property; the burden shifts to the defendant only if a nucleus of joint family property is proven. (Paras 19, 20, 53)

(C) Revenue Records – Presumption of Title – Khasra Pahani entries are presumed correct unless proven otherwise, but do not confer title. (Paras 22, 24)

Facts of the case :

The plaintiff filed for partition of properties claiming they were joint family properties, while defendants asserted they were self-acquired by their father. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the appellate court reversed this decision.

Findings of Court :

The appellate court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the properties were joint family properties and that the unregistered sale agreement was inadmissible.

Issues : Whether the properties were joint family properties and the admissibility of Ex.B1.

Ratio Decidendi : The court ruled that the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proof required to establish the properties as joint family properties.

Result : Second appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 20.10.2008 in A.S.No.8 of 2007 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad District, these Second Appeals are filed by plaintiff, defendant No.3, defendant Nos.8, 10 and 11 and defendant No.9 respectively.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The appellant in S.A.No.94 of 2003 i.e., the sole plaintiff has filed O.S.No.54 of 1995 before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chevella for partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties against defendant Nos.1 to 11. The suit was preliminarily decreed on 05.01.2007. Aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.4 to 7 have preferred A.S.No.8 of 2007 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, wherein the appeal was partly allowed by setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.54 of 1995 to the extent of ‘A’ schedule property. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, the sole plaintiff, defendant No.3, defendant Nos.8, 10, 11 and defendant No.9 have preferred the present Second Appeals to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad and confirm the judgment passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chevella.

4. Before going into the merits of the case, it is appropriate to know the contentions of the respective parties as can be seen from the pleadings placed before the learned Trial Court by both the parties in O.S.No.54 of 1995.

5. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.54 of 1995 with the following plaint averments:

a) The plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 3 and husband of defendant No.2 by name G. Elia are real brothers. Their father Gunjuru Venkaiah was the absolute owner, pattedar and possessor of agricultural lands bearing sy.No.27 admeasuring Ac.5.39 guntas, Sy.No.77 admeasuring Ac.16.06 guntas total admeasuring Ac.22.05 guntas in residential house situated at Kanakamamidi village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Gunjuru Venkaiah died in the year 1976 leaving behind the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 3 and husband of defendant No.2 by name G. Elia as his legal heirs and successors.

b) Thereafter, the plaintiff and his brothers were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Revenue authorities granted succession and mutation of patta of schedule “A” properties and implemented the same in paisal patti for the year 1978-79. The second son of G. Venkaiah i.e., G. Elia died in the year 1989 leaving behind him, his widow Smt. G. Rajamma, who is defendant No.2 as his legal heir.

c) Defendant No.1 having fabricated unregistered sale document purported to the year of 1953 initiated proceedings before the MRO, Moinabad for validation falsely claiming that he purchased suit schedule property. After due enquiry, M.R.O. rejected his claim file order dated 26.10.1994 in proceedings No.B/5048/1989. In the presence of elders, he demanded the defendants to effect partition of the suit schedule properties into four equal shares. The defendant No.1 is making attempts to alienate the suit schedule property to third parties. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition of suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties into four equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff.

6. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 died and thereby his legal representatives were brought on record as defendant Nos.4 to 6, which filed their written statement and the brief averments of which are as under:

a) G. Venkaiah was an agricultural coolie having four sons and four daughters. Defendant No.1 became a teacher in Methodist Boys High School, Abids and with his earnings prior to 1950 itself a stationary shop was established in the name of G. Harris and Sons. The wife of defendant No.1 also worked as Nurse in Nizam palace. With the earnings of wife and husband, they purchased suit 'A’ schedule property through an

                      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                      1
                      2
                      3
                      4
                      5
                      6
                      7
                      8
                      9
                      10
                      11
                      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                      supreme today icon
                      logo-black

                      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                      Please visit our Training & Support
                      Center or Contact Us for assistance

                      qr

                      Scan Me!

                      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                      whatsapp-icon Back to top