When a male Hindu dies intestate, his absolute properties devolve upon his Class-I heirs in equal shares under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, provided any claimed Will is not proven by the propounder.

Judgment in S.A.No.800_2025

The Court made the following Judgment:

Unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.238 of 2011 on the file of Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, filed A.S.No.71 of 2019 on the file of the Court of VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle.

The said appeal was dismissed by Judgment dated 25.07.2025. Aggrieved by the Judgment of Appellate Court confirming the decree and judgment of Trial Court, present Second Appeal has been preferred.

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

The plaintiff / respondent, sister of defendant / appellant herein filed O.S.No.238 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, seeking partition of plaint schedule properties into two equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot one such share to her and one such share to defendant by way of a preliminary decree and for costs.

In the suit, she inter alia pleaded that plaint schedule property was originally ancestral property of her father one Mr.C.Venkata Subbareddy, that he performed her marriage in the year 1987 and that her father and her brother / defendant used to cultivate plaint schedule property. It is also pleaded that her father died in the year 1996 leaving behind him, herself and defendant as his legal heirs. Further, that her mother pre-deceased Mr.C.Venkata Subbareddy and she and her brother succeeded to the properties. It is also pleaded that after death of her father, defendant used to cultivate the land with her permission and give usufruct towards her share. In view of hostile attitude of her brother and denial of share of produce, she filed the suit for partition.

Defendant filed written statement denying the claim of plaintiff. It was specifically pleaded that marriage of the plaintiff was performed on 06.05.1985. While categorically stating that plaint schedule properties belong to Venkata Subbareddy and his two brothers Ramchandra Reddy and Venkata Narayana Reddy and that they got divided the properties more than 40 years back and since then they have been enjoying their respective properties separately, the defendant pleaded that his father Mr.Venkata Subbareddy, out of love and affection towards him voluntarily, in a sound and disposing state of mind, executed a Will dated 10.05.1987 (Ex.B2) in favour of defendant in respect of all his properties both movable and immovable and after his death, by virtue of Will dated 10.05.1987, defendant became entitled to all the properties of his father Venkata Subbareddy.

On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, learned Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaint schedule properties are liable for partition?

2. If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of two (2) equal shares and allotment of one such share to the plaintiff in the plaint schedule properties?

3. Whether the frame of the suit is not maintainable and Court fee paid U/Sec.34 (2) of A.P.C.F. Act is incorrect and whether she has to pay Court fee U/Sec.34 (1) of A.P.C.F. Act ?

4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of co-owners and co-sharers?

5. To what relief?

On 19.01.2018, Court framed the following Additional issue:

1. Whether the unregistered Will dated 10-05-1987 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?

In support of her case, the plaintiff examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. On behalf of defendant, Dws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. B1 to B6 were marked.

Basing on the evidence on record, learned Trial Court, recorded it’s conclusions inter alia, that plaint averments are not sufficient to believe that plaintiff’s marriage was performed in the year 1987, but not in the year 1985 and that the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of Section 29 (A) of Hindu Succession (A.P.Amendment) Act i.e., Act 13 of 1986. Learned Trial Court further examined the matter with reference