THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT No.89 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the judgment and decree dated

03.12.2014 passed in O.S.No.64 of 2012 by the learned Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar, the present appeal suit is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff, Smt. P. Vijaya, daughter of late M. Ramchandraiah, filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/5^th share in the suit schedule properties, which consisted of lands situated at Nandigama and Inmulnarva villages in Mahabubnagar District. She claimed that the items 1 to 3 of the schedule lands were ancestral and joint family properties that originally belonged to her grandfather, M. Narayana, who passed away in the year 2001. Upon his demise, the properties devolved upon his sons, including her father, Ramchandraiah. The plaintiff contended that the remaining items 4 and 5 were also acquired by her father from the income of the joint family properties and thus retained the character of joint family assets. Ramchandraiah died intestate on 21.01.2008, leaving behind the plaintiff, her mother (D1), her two brothers (D2 and D3), and her sister (D4) as his legal heirs.

3. She asserted that in the year 2009 she demanded partition, to which her mother and brothers initially agreed but later evaded division. She alleged that in order to deprive her and her sister of their legitimate shares, defendant No.1 (her mother) fabricated a will dated 05.03.1994 purportedly executed by her father bequeathing the suit lands in her favour. Further, she pointed out that defendant No.1 had even approached the Tahsildar for mutation of her name in the revenue records, and despite her objections, succession was granted in favour of defendant No.1 under Ex.B3 dated 18.06.2012. The plaintiff maintained that the will was bogus and unregistered, and therefore invalid, especially since her father had no exclusive right to bequeath joint family properties. She further contended that the so-called acquisitions by defendant No.1 in Inmulnarva village (items 4 and 5) were actually bought using joint family income, though registered in the name of defendant No.1.

4. The defendants filed a joint written statement before the trial Court, with defendant Nos.1 and 4 taking the lead and the same being adopted by defendant Nos.2 and 3. The primary stand taken by the defendants was that items 1 and 2 of the schedule lands were originally owned by M. Narayana and were allotted to Ramchandraiah in a family partition with his brother Anjaiah. Item 3 was claimed to have been jointly purchased by Ramchandraiah and Anjaiah under Ex.B1 (sale deed dated 10.07.1984), and was allegedly allotted to Ramchandraiah in a mutual settlement between the brothers. They asserted that Ramchandraiah had absolute rights over items 1 to 3, and he exercised that right by executing a will dated 05.03.1994 (Ex.B.2), bequeathing the said properties in favour of his wife (defendant No.1) with life interest and subsequent enjoyment by their sons (defendant Nos.2 and 3) after marriage of the daughters.

5. The defendants also submitted that the lands in Inmulnarva village, i.e., items 4 and 5, were self-acquired properties of defendant No.1, purchased from her own funds, including proceeds from sale of her gold ornaments and financial help from her parents. They denied the allegation that these were purchased using joint family income. Further, the defendants alleged that the present suit was filed at the instigation of Anjaiah, who had earlier sold his share during the lifetime of Narayana and had no right to interfere in the family affairs. It was also submitted that based on the Will (Ex.B2), the revenue authorities had rightfully mutated the name of defendant No.1, and she had also executed registered gift deeds in favour of defendant No.3 for some of the lands.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed three issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PW.1 was examined and