HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT No.446 OF 2006

JUDGMENT:

The present Appeal Suit is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2006 passed in O.S.No.19 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet. The defendant No.1 in the suit has filed this appeal against the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 4.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in O.S.No.19 of 2002.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property, asserting her 1/6^th share. The disputed property originally belonged to late Yakub Ali, who passed away in the year 1993, leaving behind four children, defendant No.1, is the son and three daughters (Plaintiff and Defendants No.2 to 4). Another daughter predeceased him, as did his wife in the year 1999. The heirs inherited the property, but disputes arose regarding its partition and ownership.

However, a portion of the property, specifically House No.8-1-6 at Sahirpura, Siddipet, was sold in the year 2001, and the sale proceeds were shared among the heirs. The plaintiff alleged that the remaining suit schedule property was jointly possessed and managed by Defendant No.1 on behalf of all heirs. However, Defendant No.1, after shifting his residence to the rear portion of the property, allegedly began acting against the interests of the co-sharers by misusing documents obtained with their consent. The plaintiff further accused Defendant No.1 of dodging monthly rent payments and falsely claiming sole ownership based on a release deed allegedly executed in the year 2001.

4. That the Defendant No.1, in his written statement, admitted the family relationships and acknowledged the death of wife of Yakub Ali and predeceased daughter. However, he contended that the property had already been subjected to partition, with the plaintiff and Defendants No.2 to 4 opting to receive monetary compensation instead of a share in the property. He relied on an affidavit dated 07.10.1999, signed before a notary, stating that the plaintiff and Defendants No.2 to 4 had consented to the mutation of the property in his name. He further contended that a mediation by elders resulted in passing of an Award on 22.09.2000 which allocated the property exclusively to him, with the plaintiff and other heirs accepting monetary compensation.

5. That the Defendant No.2 supported the claim of Defendant No.1, asserting that the property was exclusively allotted to him in partition, and that the other heirs had executed an affidavit consenting to its mutation, contending that the suit be dismissed. Meanwhile, Defendants No.3 and 4 aligned with the plaintiff, contending that the property remained undivided and was still jointly possessed by the heirs as tenants in common under the management of Defendant No.1.

6. After hearing both sides and considering the submissions made thereof, the trial Court framed five key issues for adjudication, which read as under: • Whether the property was jointly possessed and managed by Defendant No.1?

• Whether the sale of House No. 8-1-6 was properly executed by all heirs?

• Whether the plaintiff and Defendants No.3 and 4 had executed a release deed on 02.05.2001?

• Whether the plaintiff was entitled to partition into six equal shares and allotment of her 1/6th share?

• To what relief?

7. During trial, oral and documentary evidence were presented by both parties. The trial Court observed that while the sale transaction of House No.8-1-6 had been properly executed, the crucial documents relied upon by Defendant No.1—Ex.B1 related to the sold-out property and Ex.B18 - an alleged release deed were unregistered. Further, citing Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 the trial Court observed that any document creating or extinguishing rights in immovable property valued at more than Rs.100/- must be compulsorily registered to be legally enforceable. Additionally, several judicial