THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SAMBASI VA RAO NAI DU

JUDGMENT:

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree in OS.No.

186 of 2010 on the file of XXVII Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad dated 01-12-2017 by which his suit for partition of the suit schedule properties was dismissed by the trial Court, the plaintiff in the above said suit has filed this first Civil Appeal under Section 96 and Order 41 Rule1, 2 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘C.P.C.’) on the following grounds.

2. The trial Court failed to consider the pleadings, admissions of the parties and came to an erroneous conclusion by which his suit was dismissed. The Court below did not consider the entire documentary evidence and made observations which are against the documents marked as Exs.A2, A9 to A38, A58 and A64. The observations made by the trial Court as if the defendant obtained the loan for housing purpose and power connection was given on the affidavit filed by the defendant to the first floor in the name of plaintiff without any proof in support of the said observations and the same is against Exs.A5, A6, A7, A39 to A44. The trial Court failed to consider the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 and completely ignored the admissions made by the parties with regard to the House-warming ceremony that was performed by plaintiff as owner of the property. The trial Court did not consider the case law cited by the plaintiff. The appellant find fault with the observations made by the trial Court that the appreciation of evidence could not prove the suit schedule property is a coparcenary property so that the plaintiff will have a share in the said property.

3. The appellant has claimed that the Court below failed to note the intention of the parties while preparing invitation for the House-warming ceremony and Ring ceremony conducted by the defendant. The trial Court failed to consider Ex.A8 which clearly proves that first floor was the property of plaintiff. As per Ex.A8 draft invitation which was prepared by defendant in his own hand-writing, it clearly indicates that he has attended the function with his family and he gave gifts to the plaintiff. The trial Court brushed aside the important documentary evidence admitted photographs and came to an incorrect conclusion.

4. The appellant has further contented that the Court below was wrong in holding that according to PW.1, an agreement was entered into between M/s. Sai Ram Associates and defendant but originally the said agreement was drafted between plaintiff and said Sai Ram Associates. However, as the plot was in the name of defendant only to meet legal and technical aspects, the name of plaintiff was deleted and the name of defendant was written and that the agreement was executed only on behalf of the plaintiff.

5. The plaintiff while referring the proceedings in respect of Criminal Case in Crl. Revision Case No.1630 of 2018 has claimed that this Court believed his version and allowed the Criminal Revision Case. Therefore, he took the said order also a ground for allowing the present appeal. 6. The appellant has claimed that the Court below did not consider the evidence produced by him and without discussing anything about the documents dismissed his suit. Therefore, sought for setting aside the judgment of the trial Court and also prayed for a decree for partition of the suit schedule property and for allotment of his share therein and sought for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

7. The following is the brief case of appellant herein before the trial Court according to his plaint in OS.No.186 of

2010:

The plaintiff and defendant are brothers. Their parents expired on 11-04-2000 and 30-05-2005 respectively. The plaintiff has claimed that his father purchased Plot No.6 at Jai Nagar Colony Sikh Village, Secunderabad with his own funds but the document was obtained in the name of defendant since the defendant was in defense services and it was easy for him to obtain a House loan. The parents o