IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified the application of Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, emphasizing the need to include all rightful heirs in partition suits.

JUDGMENT:

Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.401 of 2013 on the file of the XIX Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, has filed this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 01.03.2017 passed by the trial Court in the subject suit whereunder the trial Court had passed a decree in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs for partition of the schedule mentioned property.

2. For the sake of convenience and also for better understanding, the parties will be referred in the same ranking in which they are arrayed before the trial Court.

3. As could be seen from the material available on record, the plaintiffs have filed the subject suit against defendant Nos.1 to 3 seeking partition of the schedule mentioned property i.e., House bearing door Nos.6-5-453 to 455, admeasuring 96.44 square yards. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiffs have claimed that the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 and one Sri Devraj are the sons of Mr.G.Krishna Murthy and Smt.Santhamma. Defendant No.3 is the wife of the said Sri Devaraj, who was no more by the time of filing of the suit.

4. The plaintiffs have claimed that Smt.Janakamma, who is their maternal grandmother i.e., mother of the said Smt.Santhamma was the original owner of the schedule mentioned property and during her life time, she has executed a registered Will deed bequeathing the schedule mentioned property in favour of her daughter i.e., Smt.Santhamma and her grandchildren i.e., the plaintiffs and defendants shall be entitled to enjoy the joint and individual rights in the property. Therefore, after the death of their grandmother, the plaintiffs and the defendants and said Smt.Santhamma were residing in the said house.

5. The plaintiffs have further claimed that since the extent of the property is small, they could not have divided the property into five shares, thereby, they gave consent for sale of the property so that they can divide the sale proceeds into five shares. However, due to difference of opinion such sale could not have been affected as such they wanted the property to be partitioned among all the sons of Smt.Santhamma and as one of the sons, the said Sri Devaraj is no more, his share shall be given to Defendant No.3-Smt.Sumithra Devi.

6. The plaintiffs have claimed that defendant No.1 did not cooperate for the partition and for the sale of the property, as he wanted to grab the entire property, they filed the subject suit seeking partition of the property into five equal shares.

7. Out of three defendants shown in the plaint, defendant Nos.2 and 3 were remained ex parte whereas defendant No.1 has filed the written statement admitting the original ownership of Smt.Janakamma over the schedule mentioned property, he has claimed that Smt.Janakamma while executing the registered Will bequeathed the property in favour of her daughter Smt.Santhamma and grandchildren of Smt.Santhamma, thereby, the sons of Smt.Santhamma have no right over the schedule mentioned property. Thereby, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition of the property into five shares is not maintainable. He has also claimed before the trial Court that in view of the Will deed executed by original owner Smt.Janakamma bequeathing the property to Smt.Santhamma and her grandchildren, since Smt.Janakamma and Smt.Santhamma are no more, the grandchildren of Smt.Santhamma only have got right, therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. The trial Court has framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/5th share in the suit schedule property?

2) To what relief?

During the course of trial, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.15 documents were marked. Defendant No.1 has been examined as DW.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.10 are marked. The trial Court having appreciated the pleadings and evidence of both the parties, came to the conclusion that since there was no dispute about the original ownership of Smt.