Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
RENUKA YARA
Aluguvelly Bhagawan Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Aluguvelly Venkat Reddy, (died) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant seeks partition of ancestral property. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondents claim prior partition occurred. (Para 4 , 8) |
| 3. trial court relied on evidence supporting prior partition. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. appellant's claims contested as facts not valid in appeal. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. second appeal dismissed due to lack of substantial law questions. (Para 13) |
| 6. final order dismisses the second appeal. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
RENUKA YARA, J.
Heard Sri K. Bhuchi Babu, learned counsel for the appellant/appellant/plaintiff, on the question of admission. Perused the record.
2. This Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant/ appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2024 in A.S.No.157 of 2018 passed by the learned Principal District Judge at Karimnagar (for short ‘the First Appellate Court’) confirming the judgment and decree dated 02.05.2018 in O.S.No.2 of 2008 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad (for short ‘the Trial Court’), wherein, a suit filed seeking partition and separate possession has been dismissed i.e. the First appeal is also dismissed confirming dismissal of the suit.
3. The appellant herein filed suit in O.S.No.2 of 2008
A Second Appeal lacks merit if it raises factual disputes already resolved by lower courts and does not present a substantial question of law.
A Family Arrangement that excludes Class-I legal heirs is invalid, and all heirs must be consulted for a legally enforceable partition.
The court reaffirmed that for a valid partition among joint family properties, proper registration and absence of fraud are crucial, emphasizing joint possession and familial rights.
The presumption of joint family status in Hindu law requires clear evidence to establish prior partition; the Appellate Court allowed partition of one property acquired post-partition while dismissin....
The heavy burden of proof upon the proponent of oral partition before it is accepted, as per the settled principle of law by the Apex Court.
The court established that unregistered documents affecting rights in immovable property are inadmissible in evidence, and that joint family properties are subject to partition among all rightful hei....
Rule 73 of Rules reads as duties of Registering Officer.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compulsory registration of family settlement documents under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, and the inadmissib....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
