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.

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 and Kammari Laxmaiah expired leaving behind his wife Lalithamma, who also expired. When partition has taken place amongst the children of Kammari Kistamma, the suit schedule property is mutated in the names of Kammari Ramulu, Kammari Kalamma and Kammari Lalithamma vide proceedings No.B/222/2007, dated 31.03.2007. Accordingly, 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.220 and in Sy.No.222 of Chinthalpally Village, Pudur Mandal was mutated in the name of Kammari Lalithamma and further pattadar pass books and title deeds were also issued in her name. Kammari Lalithamma expired on 06.07.2007, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant as her legal heirs.

4.1. An extent of Acs.3.16 guntas in Sy.No.215 and an extent of Ac.1.21 guntas in Sy.No.216 are inam lands of Kammari Kistamma and later, Occupancy Rights Certificate was granted to the family of late Kistamma; Kammari Lalithamma has got two children i.e., plaintiff and defendant and all of them have constituted an Hindu Undivided Joint Family and they are governed by Mitakashara School of law; that the defendant tried to alienate the suit schedule property to the third parties, without consent or knowledge of plaintiff and thereafter, plaintiff demanded for partition and separate possession of suit schedule property, but defendant refused for partition. Hence, the suit for partition.

5. The defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and claimed that the land admeasuring Acs.3.16 guntas in Sy.No.215 and Ac.1.21 guntas in Sy.No.216 are the lands of the defendant as such, the Occupancy Rights Certificate was issued in favour of defendant as on 01.11.1999, on payment of premium to the Government, therefore, plaintiff has no right to claim the suit schedule property. It is further averred that Sy.No.220 comprises only Ac.0.17 guntas, and Sy.No.222 comprises only Ac.5.29 guntas, out of which the plaintiff and the defendant each hold a one-third share; that the plaintiff without consent and knowledge of the defendant and her mother, obtained proceedings in respect of suit schedule property and no enquiry was conducted by the revenue authorities before issuing proceedings.

5.1. That the defendant has given an extent of Acs.2.20 guntas of land in Sy.No.215 to his first wife K.Bagyamma for her maintenance. During the lifetime of Kistamma, she sold an extent of Ac