Legal heirs of an intestate mother are entitled to equal shares in the property, and a release deed executed under misrepresentation is invalid.

JUDGMENT :

K. SUJANA, J.

1. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2009 passed in O.S.No.649 of 2007 by the learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, the present City Civil Court Appeal is filed.

2. I.A.No.2 of 2025 is filed seeking to grant leave and receive the certified copy of the Will deed document No.158/III/2019 dated 23.09.2019 and death certificate dated 18.02.2022 as additional evidence on behalf of appellants.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit seeking partition of the suit schedule property into five equal shares and for allotment of one share each to themselves and defendants. The plaintiffs stated that defendant No.1 is their father, while defendants No.2 and 3 are their brother and sister. They claimed that their mother, Sarojini Devi, died intestate on 31.08.2001, leaving behind the suit schedule property, and that all her legal heirs, i.e., the plaintiffs and defendants, were entitled to succeed to it. The plaintiffs further alleged that after the death of their mother, there was an oral settlement among the parties, whereby the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 were to have a share in the first floor of the building to be constructed with joint family funds, while defendant No.2 was to take the ground floor and upper floors. It was further claimed that defendant Nos.1 and 2 obtained signatures of the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 on the pretext of executing a mortgage deed to obtain a loan, but instead fraudulently registered a release deed. Upon discovering the fraud, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice seeking partition, but the request was denied by defendants No.1 and 2, compelling them to file the suit.

4. On the other hand, defendants Nos.1 and 2 filed a common written statement denying the claims of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 stated that the suit schedule property was purchased with his own earnings and was only registered in the name of his wife Sarojini Devi as a benami. He denied the existence of any family settlement and alleged that the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 forcibly obtained his signature on non-judicial stamp papers. He claimed that he had spent substantial amounts for the marriages of the plaintiffs and provided them with gold and silver jewellery. He also stated that, having executed a registered release deed, the plaintiffs were now estopped from claiming any share in the suit property. Defendant No.3, however, filed a separate written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs and denied having voluntarily signed the release deed.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed three issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A1 to A5 are marked. DWs.1 and 2 are examined and Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of the defendants.

6. The trial Court, upon evaluating the evidence, found that the property stood in the name of Sarojini Devi, who died intestate. The trial Court held that defendant No.1 failed to discharge the burden of proving that the property was benami and purchased with his funds. The trial Court also noted that the so-called release deed (Ex.A2) was executed under suspicious circumstances, and no proper explanation was offered regarding its execution. The defendants failed to produce corroborative evidence or examine defendant No.2 or the attestors to support the claim that the release deed was voluntarily executed. The trial Court held that Ex.A2 appeared to have been executed under misrepresentation and fraud and thus could not be relied upon and that the Court fee paid was proper under Section 34(2) of the APCF and SV Act since the plaintiffs, being co-owners, were deemed to be in constructive possession. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit and passed a preliminary decree for partition of the suit schedule property into five equal shares, allotting one share each to the two plaintiffs and three defendants. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appella