A Family Arrangement that excludes Class-I legal heirs is invalid, and all heirs must be consulted for a legally enforceable partition.

JUDGMENT :

RENUKA YARA, J.

Heard Sri B. Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2/defendant No.3 and Sri G. Sreenath, learned counsel for respondent No.1/appellant/ defendant No.2, on the question of admission. Perused the record.

2. This Second Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 06.03.2025 in A.S.No.141 of 2019 passed by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short ‘the First Appellate Court”) setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 18.01.2018 in O.S.No.1349 of 2008 passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District (for short ‘the Trial Court’), wherein, the suit for partition and separate possession was dismissed i.e. vide judgment and decree in First Appeal, the suit has been decreed.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they are referred in the suit.

4. The background facts of the case are that one late P. Narasimha Chary was allotted with suit schedule property by State Bank of Hyderabad Employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Said late P. Narasimha Chary obtained loan for construction of house and paid some installments to defendant No.5 Bank. While things stood thus, on 04.05.1988, said late P. Narasimha Chary died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff (wife) and defendant Nos.1 to 4 (children) as his legal heirs. Defendant No.5 is State Bank of Hyderabad Employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., to which instalments were paid by the plaintiff. After the plaintiff cleared the loan, No Due Certificate was issued on 19.03.2008. Thereafter, defendant Nos.1 and 3 who are sons of the deceased late P. Narasimha Chary approached defendant No.5 to register the suit Schedule property in their names whereas the plaintiff who is mother of defendant Nos.1 to 4 requested for partition of the suit schedule property into five (5) equal shares. At that, defendant Nos.1 and 3 claimed exclusive rights to the suit schedule property. Further, according to the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 tried to alienate the suit schedule property to third parties by snatching original documents.

5. Per contra, the case of defendant Nos.1 and 3 (sons) is that partition was already effected through a oral Family Arrangement dated 11.08.2002 and the same was also reduced into writing. The suit schedule property was divided into three (3) equal shares with one (1) share each allotted to the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 3. No share was allotted to defendant Nos.2 and 4 (daughters) as the plaintiff agreed to part her share in equal halves to her daughters. Defendant Nos.2 and 4 (daughters) also agreed to such an arrangement to take half share each in their mother’s share and thereby, acknowledged Family Arrangement but did not sign the same. The loan amount was paid by the plaintiff from the death benefits of the deceased P. Narasimha Chary. The defendant Nos.1 and 3 never approached defendant No.5 for execution of sale deed as they have adhered to the Family Arrangement dated 11.08.2002. Further, allegation about trying to alienate the suit schedule property by snatching the title deeds is false. The plaintiff is in possession of her share and defendant Nos.1 and 3 are in possession of their respective shares. During pendency of suit, defendant No.1 died and defendant Nos.6 to 8 were brought on record as his legal heirs.

6. Defendant No.5 Bank filed written statement offering to register the suit schedule property as per judgment and decree in the suit.

7. During trial, the plaintiff got examined herself as PW1 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A4 consisting of legal heir certificate, electricity bills dated 05.10.2002 and 08.03.20