Bona fide purchasers must act in good faith and with reasonable inquiry to gain protection under ownership claims; mere ignorance of actual ownership is not sufficient.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. PRIYADARSINI, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2021 in O.S.No.185 of 2013, on the file of learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam, whereby the suit for partition was preliminarily decreed.

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

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the plaint are that the sole plaintiff filed the O.S.No.185/2013 on the file of learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam against defendant Nos.1 to 9 seeking partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., land admeasuring Ac.3.24 guntas in Sy.No.377/AA, 377/E, 378/AA, 378/E at Tanikella Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khamam. Batchala Sambaiah, who expired intestate on 13.11.2008, is the original owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. Plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the daughters and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of Batchala Sambaiah. After the death of Batchala Sambaiah, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 have succeeded to the suit schedule property and also in constructive possession of the same. Though plaintiff demanded for partition of the suit schedule property, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 went on postponing the same on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff came to know that defendant Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with defendant Nos.5 to 9 have created some sham and nominal documents in respect of suit schedule property by forging the signature of the plaintiff. Despite receiving legal notice from plaintiff, defendants did not respond. Hence, the suit for partition seeking division of the suit schedule property into five equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff.

4. In response to the above plaint averments, defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed their respective written statements. The sum and substance of their written statement is that Batchala Sambaiah has performed the marriages of plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 and 4 by giving dowry amount in cash, valuable properties etc., and in the year 1985 entire properties of Batchala Sambaiah were partitioned among defendant Nos.1 and 2 and a daughter Kamalamma. At the time of partition, Batchala Sambaiah paid the amounts by way of cash in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.3, as such plaintiff and defendant No.3 have no share or right over any of the properties. Batchala Sambaiah passed away on 13.11.2008 and during his life time he and defendant No.2 have relinquished their share in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of land to an extent of Ac.1.18 guntas vide document dated 08.09.2007. Defendant No.2 never forged any document. Since, plaintiff has no right to claim any share over the suit schedule property, there is no joint and constructive property left behind and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs. On the other hand, defendant Nos.5 to 9 have filed their common written statement admitting the relationship but contended that the plaintiff in collusion with defendant Nos.1 to 4 has filed the suit to harass these defendants and thus, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the partition pleaded by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the year 1985 is true, valid and binding?

2. Whether th