JUDGEMENT

The present Second Appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree, dated 12.10.2021, passed by Principal District Judge, Suryapet in AS.No.02 of 2018, whereunder and whereby the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2018 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kodad in O.S.No.185 of 2009 was confirmed.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case, which led to filing of the present Second Appeal, are that the suit was filed for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. It was averred that the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are joint family members governed by Hindu Mithakshara School of Law They are the joint owners and possessors of the suit schedule properties having acquired the same from their ancestors and they have equal rights in the properties having 1/3 share each.

3.1. It was further averred that the plaintiff demanded defendant Nos.1 and 2 for partition of the suit schedule properties, but they did not come forward for the division and they sold away the lands in suit Survey No.247 to defendant Nos.3 and 4 through registered sale deeds without her knowledge. She came to know about the said alienation in the month of December, 2008 and immediately, she got issued a legal notice to defendant Nos.1 and 2 demanding them for partition of the suit schedule properties and cancellation of the said registered sale deeds. Further, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are trying to alienate the other suit schedule properties also and hence, she filed the present suit.

4. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed their common written statement before the trial court inter alia denying the plaint averments. It was stated that the plaintiff is not the daughter of defendant No.1, but she is daughter of brother of defendant No.1 by name Singareddy and as such, she is not a member of the joint family of defendant No.s.1 and 2. Therefore, the plaintiff does not have any share in the suit schedule properties. The sale deeds executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 are valid documents. Keeping in mind some financial disputes between the husband of the plaintiff and defendant No.2, only to harass defendant Nos.1 and 2, the present suit is filed and prayed to dismiss the suit

5. Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:-

“1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? Insufficient? decree of partition as prayed for? the registered sale deed No. 8847-2008 and 8848/2008 executed by defendant not in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 are collusive and fraudulent and are not binding on the plaintiff?”

6. In support of his claim, the plaintiff examined PWs.1 and 2 on his behalf and marked Exs.A-1 to A-13. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws-1 to 8 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-9 were marked.

7. The trial Court, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and the contentions of both the parties, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 05.01.2018, by observing as hereunder:-

“The admissions of PW-2, who is said to be the father of the plaintiff, also supports the version of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 that the plaintiff is not the daughter of the defendant No.1. If at all the plaintiff is the daughter of the defendant No.1, definitely his name would be reflected in all his educational certificates and other certificates of P.W.1. However, except mee-seva generated birth certificate of PW.1 under Ex-A15, there is no scrap of paper before this Court to come to a conclusion that the plaintiff is the natural daughter of the defendant No.1 and the natural sister of the defendant No.2.” 7.1. The trial Court has further observed as under:-

“The evidence of DW.7 is very crucial. Because this court has to give a great sanctity to the evidence of DW.7, who is said to