The court reaffirmed that property registered in one person's name can be deemed joint family property if acquired with joint family funds, supported by notarized affidavits.

JUDGMENT :

This Appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiffs against the decree and judgment dated 21.01.2013 dismissing O.S. No. 170 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge at Warangal.

2. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. The suit is to declare plaintiffs as owners of suit schedule property; to evict defendants from suit schedule property; to award damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- from defendants with pedente lite interest @ 18% p.a. and for costs. The suit schedule property is a house plot bearing No. 27 admeasuring 490 square yards forming part of Survey No. 424 situated at Central Excise Colony, Waddepally Sivar, Hanamkonda.

3.1. The case of Plaintiffs is that their father Sri Ginna (Jinna) Malla Reddy was a member of the Central Excise Officers Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Hanamkonda (Housing Society) who purchased the suit schedule property from the Housing Society, on being allotted, by way of a registered sale deed Doc.No. 1181/1978 dated 18.05.1978. He settled the same through registered Gift Deeds bearing Doc. Nos. 6171/2001 and 6172/2001 dated 19.12.2001 as pasupu kumkuma in favour of plaintiffs. In January 2001, plaintiffs came to know that Defendant No.1, who is none other than their junior paternal uncle, is trying to alienate the same to the third parties; therefore, they got issued legal notice dated 04.01.2002 but the same was returned unserved; later they got issued a paper publication in Eenadu Daily newspaper dated 06.01.2002.

3.2. While so, Defendant No.1 trespassed into the suit schedule property on 11.01.2002 and forcibly occupied it and got constructed a compound wall towards southern side and two rooms in spite of due resistance of plaintiffs. Then, they lodged a complaint on 11.01.2002 with Subedari Police but police have not taken any action since it is a dispute of civil nature. Subsequently, Plaintiffs came to know that Defendant No.1 had obtained Municipal permission and House No. 2-7-757 as allotted by the Municipality on 24.12.2001. Therefore, the father of plaintiffs lodged a complaint with the Municipality; the Commissioner, Warangal Municipal Corporation issued notices to both the parties to submit their evidence to prove their ownership and claim and after due enquiry, the Municipal authorities cancelled the House Number allotted to Defendant No.1.

3.3. Defendant No.1 has got issued a legal notice dated 08.02.2002 to plaintiffs and their father claiming that he is owner of the suit schedule property which has fallen to his share in the partition in 1987; the father of plaintiffs executed a notarized affidavit dated 04.08.1988 in his favour by declaring that the property was allotted to Defendant No.1 in the family arrangement between the brothers and his father executed a Parishakar Patram dated 12.02.1989. Plaintiffs got issued reply notice dated 26.02.2002 to Defendant No. 1 denying the contents of his legal notice.

3.4. Plaintiffs contend that suit schedule property was purchased by their father out of his salary earnings, as such it is his self-acquired property; neither defendants nor anybody has any right over it. Defendants have forcibly occupied the suit schedule property on 11.01.2002 and constructed compound wall etcetera. Hence the suit.

4. The case of Defendants 1 to 3 is that G. (J) Malla Reddy (father of plaintiffs), along with G. Prabhakar Reddy, G. Bhupathi Reddy (Defendant No.1), G. Sudhakar Reddy and their father G. Sanjeeva Reddy constitute Hindu Joint Family and they were having properties at Thaherapur (Manda