Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1174
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
RENUKA YARA, J.
J Ramabhadra Raju Ram Raju - Appellant
Versus
Mothkala Laxmamma Sadaboina Laxmamma - Respondent
Appeal Suit No.101 of 2019
Decided On : 01-09-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Manda Adam
For the Respondent: Venkateswarlu Sanisetty
Ownership of property in a partition suit is determined based on evidence of joint possession, overriding claims of individual ownership without proof of bona fide purchase.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 19 - Partition Suit - Appellant, a bona fide purchaser of property, appealed against trial court's decision granting partition of ancestral property. Claims of bad faith and collusion were raised regarding Appellant's knowledge of prior ownership. (Paras 12, 20, 25)
(B) Ownership - The court determined that the properties were jointly owned as ancestral property despite claims of individual ownership. The trial court's findings on property nature based on evidence were upheld. (Paras 17, 22)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff and defendant claimed joint ownership of agricultural land and residential property, which was contested by defendant No.2 claiming a purchase. (Paras 4, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the trial court's conclusion regarding joint possession of the property by the plaintiff and defendant No.1, rendering the sale to defendant No.2 ineffective. (Paras 15, 25)
Issues: The primary issues included ownership status of the suit property and whether the purchase by defendant No.2 was in good faith. (Paras 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that evidence did not support the claims of defendant No.2 regarding good faith or individual ownership, ruling the transaction created to defeat the plaintiff's rights. (Paras 20, 24)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. joint ownership of ancestral property (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. claims about property ownership and relationships (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. defendant no.2's claim as bona fide purchaser (Para 9) |
| 4. determining ancestral versus self-acquired property (Para 16 , 18 , 20) |
| 5. criteria for bona fide purchaser status (Para 23 , 24) |
| 6. conclusion on appeal dismissal (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
RENUKA YARA, J.
Heard Sri Manda Adam, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri S.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri D. Kaval Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 35. Perused the entire record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by appellant/defendant No.2 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Special Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy (‘trial Court’), in O.S.No.53 of 2013, wherein the suit filed for partition was preliminarily decreed by partitioning the suit schedule property that is item No.2 of suit schedule A property and schedule B properties into three equal shares and allotting the same to plaintiff/respondent No.1, defendant Nos.1 and 3/respondent Nos.2 and 3 and by partitioning the item No.1 of the suit schedule A property into two equal shares among the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and defendant No.1/respondent No.2.
3. The appellant herein is defendant No.2, respondent No.1 herein is plaintiff, respondent No.2 herein is defendant No.1 and respondent No.3 herein is defendant No.3 before the trial Court. Respondent Nos.4 to 35 are subsequent purchasers, who got impleaded in the present appeal. The parties are referred as they are referred by the trial Court in O.S.No.53 of 2013.
Brief facts of the case:
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that herself and defendant No.1 are joint and absolute owners of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.4- 02 guntas (item No.1 of suit schedule A property) in Sy.No.232 and Ac.2-01 guntas (item No.2 of suit schedule A property) in Sy.No.237 situated at Indresham Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District and residential house bearing No.4-219 admeasuring 155 sq. yards (wherein house is constructed in 60 sq.yards) situated in Patancheru town and mandal, Medak District. The father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 one Mukthala Narayana and his brother Mallaiah were the joint absolute owners and possessors of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.8- 04 guntas in Sy.No. 232 and Ac.4-24 guntas in Sy.No.220 of Indresham Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. The said properties were originally owned by Laxmaiah and upon his death devolved on one Gagamma. Mukthala Narayana and Mallaiah were sons of said Gangamma. After death of said Gangamma, there was partition among Narayana and Mallaiah and each of them got ½ share. The father of plaintiff and defendant No.1 Narayana got land to an extent of Ac.4-02 guntas in Sy.No.232 and Ac.2-12 guntas in Sy.No.220 situated at Indresham Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District and suit schedule B property/residential house. Said Narayana died intestate and therefore, the property devolved on the plaintiff and defendant No.1. As the legal heirs both of them enjoyed the properties without partition. The name of defendant No.1 was entered into revenue records as he was male member as well as elder member among both of them. Plaintiff and defendant No.1 have jointly sold land admeasuring Ac.2-12 guntas in Sy.No.220 to M/s.PKL Limited vide registered sale deed document bearing No.3750/1998, dated 22.10.1998 and with the sale proceeds purchased land to an extent of Ac.2-01 guntas in Sy.No.237 of the same village as the said land was abutting to road. The agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2-01 guntas in Sy.No.237 was purchased vide registered sale deed document bearing No.3748/1998 on 22.10.1998 from one Rachamalla Venkaiah @ Venka Goud and the said land was registered in the name of defendant No.1, as he was the elder male member of the family.
5. According to the plaintiff, he
