Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Kammari Kummari Brahma Chary – Appellant
Versus
Kammari Kummari Anantha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.
Challenging the validity and legality of the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2025 in A.S.No.08 of 2020 passed by the Principal District Judge at Vikarabad, confirming the judgment dated 03.12.2019 in O.S.No.290 of 2007 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad, the present Second Appeal is filed.
2. Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the appellant.
3. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff before trial Court. For convenience, the parties are arrayed as they are referred to in the suit.
4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of land admeasuring Acs.10.07 guntas in Sy.No.215, Acs.4.25 guntas in Sy.No.216, Ac.1.13 guntas in Sy.No.220 and Acs.5.29 guntas in Sy.No.222, all situated at Chinthalpally Village, Pudur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (herein after referred as “suit schedule property”). One Kammari Kistamma was the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, she had three sons namely Kammari Narayana, Kammari Ramulu and Kammari Laxmaiah. The said Kammari Narayana expired leaving behind his wife Kalamma a
Ancestral property rights cannot be denied based on unilateral claims; co-heirs are entitled to equal shares and must substantiate any exclusive claims with clear evidence.
The trial court must assign reasons for its decision per Order 20 Rule 5 of CPC, failing which its judgment may be deemed arbitrary and require reconsideration.
A second appeal under Section 100 CPC must raise substantial questions of law; factual disputes decided by lower courts are not reconsidered.
A plaintiff can only establish entitlement to partition if they demonstrate joint ownership and the failure to do so, particularly through admissions and evidence of prior partition, warrants dismiss....
Tenancy rights under the Land Reforms Act are heritable, and properties retained joint status despite claims of self-acquisition; prior family admissions regarding property division supported ongoing....
A joint family property remains so despite claims of prior partition; a coparcener retains rights to inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act.
The court affirmed that partition shares from ancestral property remain joint family property for descendants, entitling them to assert claims over the inherited property.
Previous family partition and lack of joint family status preclude the plaintiff from claiming coparcenary rights under Hindu law amendments.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
