Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9960

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J
Shaik Pyare Jan – Appellant
Versus
D Satyanarayana – Respondent
APPEAL SUIT NO: 1220/2000

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M N Narasimha Reddy, A Syam Sunder Reddy
For the Respondents: K Raja Reddy, S S Bhatt, Y Nagaiah, K S Gopala Krishna

A partition suit regarding alleged joint family property must be dismissed if the plaintiff fails to plead and prove the existence of a coparcenary nucleus or if necessary parties in possession of the property are not impleaded, particularly when properties are shown to be self-acquired.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Property Law - Partition Suit - Burden of Proof - In the absence of any specific pleading describing coparcenary property or ancestral nucleus, evidence cannot be led beyond pleadings - The person asserting a property as joint family property bears the burden of proof. (Paras 18, 19, 31)

(B) Hindu Law - Coparcenary Property - Self-acquired Property - Doctrine of Blending - Doctrine of blending cannot be invoked without the existence of a valid coparcenary property - Property acquired by an individual from their own earnings is his separate property, and a son has no pre-existing right in such property during the lifetime of the father. (Paras 31, 35, 52)

(C) Civil Procedure - Non-joinder of Necessary Parties - A suit for partition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of parties if the properties are in the possession of third-party purchasers who were not impleaded in the suit despite the plaintiff's knowledge of such alienations. (Paras 38, 48, 54)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition seeking an equal share in properties, alleging they were joint and ancestral. The defendants contended the properties were self-acquired by the father of the fourth defendant, who subsequently alienated them to various third parties for legal necessity. The trial court decreed the suit, which was challenged by the defendants in appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of any coparcenary nucleus, and the documentation relied upon by the plaintiffs did not establish pre-existing rights. Evidence confirmed the properties were self-acquired and had been legally alienated to third parties prior to the institution of the suit.

Issues: Whether the suit schedule properties were joint/ancestral or self-acquired, whether the alienations were binding on the plaintiffs, and whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that in the absence of pleading or proof of coparcenary property, the claim for partition fails. Furthermore, the non-joinder of alienees in possession of the disputed property renders the suit unsustainable, and the appellate court must interfere when the lower court fails to appreciate that there is no property available for partition at the time of the suit owing to prior valid alienations.

Result: Appeal allowed; suit dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and pleadings of the suit for partition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. appellate arguments challenging the validity of the trial court judgment. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
3. character of property: absence of proof for ancestral nucleus. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
4. non-joinder of necessary parties and nominal sale allegations. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)
5. final determination on partition eligibility and appellate order. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)

JUDGMENT:

Reserved on 23.02.2026

Pronounced on 02.04.2026

Uploaded on 02.04.2026

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellants/Defendant Nos.1 and 2 challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 01.03.2000, in O.S.No.100 of 1983 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalli, [for short ‘the trial Court’].

2. The appellants herein are the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs and the respondent Nos.3 to 19 herein are the defendant Nos.3 to 19 in O.S.No.100 of 1983 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalli.

During the pendency of the appeal the appellant No.2 died and the appellant No.3 was brought on record as legal representative of the deceased appellant No.2. The appellant No.1 also died during the pendency of the appeal and the appellant Nos.4 and 5 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased appellant No.1.

During the pendency of the appeal the respondent No.4 died and the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are already on record along with respondent Nos.22 to 26 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.4. Subsequently, the respondent No.5 died and the respondent Nos.20 to 21 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.5. Thereafter, the respondent Nos.7 and 17 also died and the respondent Nos.27 to 29 and the respondent Nos.30 to 34 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased respondent Nos.7 and 17.

3. Originally, the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs herein filed the suit in O.S.No.100 of 1983 against defendant Nos.1 to 19, seeking for partition of the schedule properties into two equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiffs.

4. Both parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

5. The case of the respondent Nos.1 & 2/plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 as per the plaint averments in O.S.No.100 of 1983, in brief, is as follows:

The plaint schedule properties are joint and ancestral properties of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the defendant Nos.4 and 5. The plaintiff and the defendant No.5 are the sons of the defendant No.4 and each of them are entitled to 1/4th share in the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant No.4 has five more daughters and he started living with a profligate life and wayward life, since five or six years and totally neglected to maintain joint family consisting of the plaintiffs and their sisters, brother and mother. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant No.4 addicted to bad habits such as, gambling, womanizing etc., and failed to realize his obligation as dutiful father. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant No.4 is weak minded and is capable of being influenced and by taking advantage of the same, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 seem to have influenced the defendant No.4 to create a nominal and spurious documents in respect of the schedule property in order to defeat the legal and valuable rights of the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have no right to do so.

The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant No.4 had no legal necessities to part with the schedule property and the plaintiffs and the other members of the family

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9960

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHVenuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, JShaik Pyare Jan – AppellantVersusD Satyanarayana – RespondentAPPEAL SUIT NO: 1220/2000

A partition suit regarding alleged joint family property must be dismissed if the plaintiff fails to plead and prove the existence of a coparcenary nucleus or if necessary parties in possession of the property are not impleaded, particularly when properties are shown to be self-acquired.

Cases Referred (6)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J
Shaik Pyare Jan – Appellant
Versus
D Satyanarayana – Respondent
APPEAL SUIT NO: 1220/2000