Joint family property laws affirm equal entitlement to heirs in intestate succession, rejecting claims of prior partition absent conclusive evidence.

JUDGMENT :

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.

Since the subject matter involved in both the appeals is one and the same and the parties are also same, both the appeals are being disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. CCCA No.53 of 2019 is filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree, dated 15.03.2007 passed in O.S.No.1156 of 2007 by the learned VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the trial Court”), while CCCA No.110 of 2019 is filed being aggrieved by the final decree dated 12.02.2019 passed in I.A.No.25 of 2010. I.A. No.1 of 2025 in CCCA No.53 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.2 to receive the documents viz., copy of Will (Veelunama) dated 27.07.1996 and copy of Druveekarana Patram dated 14.11.2001.

3. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

4. The averments of the plaint in brief are that the plaintiffs are the daughters of late Kolluri Rajaiah and defendant No.3- Balrajamma, who died on 12.08.1996 intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs i.e. three daughters and two sons i.e. defendant Nos.1 and 2 and his wife defendant No.3. It is their case that their father was an employee of SBI and was a member of S.B.I. Staff Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., thus he purchased an open plot from State Bank of India, Staff Co-operative Housing Society and was allotted plot bearing No.66, admeasuring 265 Sq.yards at Tallabasti Slum Area, Ward No.1, Block No.3, New Bakaram, Hyderabad. The open plot was allotted in the year 1972 and thereafter, a building was constructed according to the sanction of Municipal Corporation. The constructed area is 598 Sq.feet and that the plaintiffs contributed at the time of remodeling the house. Their case is that defendants and themselves are the members of joint family and heirs of Kolluri Rajaiah and that their father resided in the suit schedule property along with his wife during his life time. The mother of the plaintiffs i.e. defendant No.3 is maintaining the entire family and looked after the schedule house and after the death of their father, they have contributed amounts for repairs and maintenance of the suit schedule property to their mother defendant No.3, who looked after the house and that they have been frequently visiting the house and staying there as per their convenience and that the defendants also treated them as family members till they made demands for sharing the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs case is that being the members of the joint family, they are in defacto possession of the suit schedule property and they are entitled to 1/6^th share to each of the plaintiffs along with the defendants, but the defendants refused to allot any share to the plaintiff.

5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that on 20.07.2002 they demanded the defendants for partition of the suit schedule property, but the defendants refused to give any share and that they are trying to alienate the property to third parties and they found that they started negotiating with intending purchasers to sell the suit schedule property. Thus, they filed the present suit seeking 1/6^th share in the property.

6. The defendants 1 and 3 have not contested the suit. Defendant No.2 filed written statement admitting the interse relationship between the parties and also that the father of the defendants purchased the suit schedule property through the society and that he died on 12.08.1996. It is contended by defendant No.2 that he contributed more amounts not only for remodeling of the house but also for the performance of marriages of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. He denied that the plaintiffs to be the members of the joint family. He further submitted that defendant No.1 was working in Railways and used to contribute his earnings to his parents and that defendant No.2 who is working in State Bank of India also used to contribute his earnings to his parent