Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 38713

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Tirumala Devi Eada, J
K LAXMAN – Appellant
Versus
K.Lakshmi – Respondent
C.C.C.A. No.53 of 2019|C.C.C.A. No.110 of 2019|I.A. No.1 of 2025 in C.C.C.A. No.53 of 2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mohd. Azhar
For the Respondents: M.D. Mohapatra

Additional evidence in an appellate court is discretionary and must pass tests of credibility and authenticity. Documents burdened with suspicious circumstances, such as unproven Wills lacking consistent execution, cannot override the statutory rights of legal heirs in a case of intestate succession.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 27 - Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court - Additional evidence can be received if the party establishes that despite due diligence, such evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced at the time of decree - Appellate Court has discretion to allow evidence for substantial cause to enable it to pronounce judgment. (Paras 18, 20)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 - Proof of execution of documents required by law to be attested - A Will must be proved by calling at least one attesting witness and must be surmount suspicious circumstances - Mere production of a document does not prove its contents if it is clouded by suspicion or lack of credibility. (Paras 25, 26, 28, 29)

(C) Succession - Intestate Succession - Self-acquired property - Where a property owner dies intestate, Class-1 legal heirs have equal rights to the property regardless of gender. (Para 32)

Facts of the case:
The suit originated from a dispute over the partition of a residential property among siblings and their mother. The contesting defendant argued that there was a prior oral partition and that the plaintiffs were already provided their shares via dowry and jewellery. Subsequent to the discovery of a purported Will and an affirmation document, the defendant sought to set aside the preliminary and final decrees, which had allotted equal shares to all legal heirs.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the documents filed as additional evidence were surrounded by suspicious circumstances, such as discrepancies in the method of execution (thumb impressions vs. signatures) and the fact that the alleged testator and beneficiary remained silent about such documents during the lifetime of other family members. The court also held that arguments regarding prior partition were unsubstantiated by evidence.

Issues: (1) Whether the additional evidence (Will and affirmation document) could be admitted and granted probative value. (2) Whether there was a prior partition of the joint family assets. (3) Whether the preliminary and final decrees were sustainable in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Appellate courts may exercise discretion under Order XLI Rule 27 to receive additional evidence if it is necessary for substantial justice, but such evidence must pass the test of authenticity and reliability. In this case, the documents failed to inspire confidence due to inherent contradictions and suspicious circumstances, and therefore could not supersede the rights of Class-1 heirs in an intestate succession.

Result: Appeals dismissed; preliminary and final decrees confirmed.

Table of Content
1. equal inheritance rights for class-1 legal heirs in self-acquired intestate property. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. admissibility and evidentiary value of belated document production in appellate proceedings. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 14)
3. appellate court discretion for receiving additional evidence (order xli rule 27 cpc). (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. proving a will requires dispelling all surrounding suspicious circumstances. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
5. burden of proof lies on the party claiming prior oral partition. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
6. finality of partition by metes and bounds in accordance with preliminary decree. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)

Since the subject matter involved in both the appeals is one and the same and the parties are also same, both the appeals are being disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. CCCA No.53 of 2019 is filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree, dated 15.03.2007 passed in O.S.No.1156 of 2007 by the learned VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the trial Court”), while CCCA No.110 of 2019 is filed being aggrieved by the final decree dated 12.02.2019 passed in I.A.No.25 of 2010. I.A. No.1 of 2025 in CCCA No.53 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.2 to receive the documents viz., copy of Will (Veelunama) dated 27.07.1996 and copy of Druveekarana Patram dated 14.11.2001.

3. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

4. The averments of the plaint in brief are that the plaintiffs are the daughters of late Kolluri Rajaiah and defendant No.3-Balrajamma, who died on 12.08.1996 intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs i.e. three daughters and two sons i.e. defendant Nos.1 and 2 and his wife defendant No.3. It is their case that their father was an employee of SBI and was a member of S.B.I. Staff Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., thus he purchased an open plot from State Bank of India, Staff Co-operative Housing Society and was allotted plot bearing No.66, admeasuring 265 Sq.yards at Tallabasti Slum Area, Ward No.1, Block No.3, New Bakaram, Hyderabad. The open plot was allotted in the year 1972 and thereafter, a building was constructed according to the sanction of Municipal Corporation. The constructed area is 598 Sq.feet and that the plaintiffs contributed at the time of remodeling the house. Their case is that defendants and themselves are the members of joint family and heirs of Kolluri Rajaiah and that their father resided in the suit schedule property along with his wife during his life time. The mother of the plaintiffs i.e. defendant No.3 is maintaining the entire family and looked after the schedule house and after the death of their father, they have contributed amounts for repairs and maintenance of the suit schedule property to their mother defendant No.3, who looked after the house and that they have been frequently visiting the house and staying there as per their convenience and that the defendants also treated them as family members till they made demands for sharing the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs case is that being the members of the joint family, they are in defacto possession of the suit schedule property and they are entitled to 1/6th share to each of the plaintiffs along with the defendants, but the defendants refused to allot any share to the plaintiff.

5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that on 20.07.2002 they demanded the defendants for partition of the suit schedule property, but the defendants refused to give any share and that they are trying to alienate the property to third parties and they found that they started negotiating with intending purchasers to sell the suit schedule property. Thus, they filed the present suit seeking 1/6th share in the property.

6. The defendants 1 and 3 have not contested the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 38713

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADTirumala Devi Eada, JK LAXMAN – AppellantVersusK.Lakshmi – RespondentC.C.C.A. No.53 of 2019|C.C.C.A. No.110 of 2019|I.A. No.1 of 2025 in C.C.C.A. No.53 of 2019

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Tirumala Devi Eada, J
K LAXMAN – Appellant
Versus
K.Lakshmi – Respondent
C.C.C.A. No.53 of 2019|C.C.C.A. No.110 of 2019|I.A. No.1 of 2025 in C.C.C.A. No.53 of 2019