THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the order dated 17.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.8 of 2006 by the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, the present appeal suit is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant seeking partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit schedule properties, claiming that the ancestral joint family consisting of Shivaiah and his three sons, Pochaiah, Papaiah, and Hanumaiah, continued without partition. They argued that after the deaths of Pochaiah (without heirs) and Papaiah, the defendant (Papaiah’s son) became the pattedar of the properties and refused their demand for partition. The defendant contended that the properties were already partitioned in the year 1949 among Shivaiah’s sons, making further partition untenable. He claimed exclusive ownership of "A schedule property," inherited from Pochaiah and supported by documentary evidence, including revenue records, title deeds, and judicial decrees.

3. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed five issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A1 to A15 are marked. DWs.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.B1 to B45 were marked on behalf of the defendants.

4. After examining the evidence, the trial Court, vide order dated 17.12.2009, dismissed the suit, holding that partition had already occurred in the year 1949 and the defendant was the absolute owner of the "A schedule property," while the plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claims. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal suit is filed.

5. Heard Sri Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Sri K. V. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment and decree of the trial court are contrary to law, the weight of evidence, and the preponderance of probabilities and that the trial Court erred in dismissing the suit for partition and separate possession of the half share of the appellants in the plaint schedule property. The trial Court incorrectly held, without substantial evidence, that the properties were divided in a prior partition in the year 1949, and that the respondent is in exclusive ownership of "A" schedule property following the death of Pochaiah in the year 1964. He further submitted that Sivaiah and his three sons, Pochaiah, Papaiah, and Hanumaiah, constituted a Hindu joint family with "A" schedule property, which remained undivided until the filing of the present suit. He contended that Pochaiah, as the eldest male member, held the properties in his name, and after his intestate death without heirs, the properties devolved jointly on the appellants and the respondent. The appellants refute the claim of the Court that the respondent is the foster son of Pochaiah and, as such, entitled to the entire property.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the absence of evidence of adoption or a will executed by Pochaiah, underscoring their entitlement to half share in the properties. He also challenged the reliance on documentary evidence of the trial Court submitted by the respondent, arguing that certain key exhibits were improperly disregarded or misinterpreted, such as Ex.A1 (Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55). The appellants maintain that the presumption of joint ownership of "A" schedule property persists in their favor and that the suit for partition is valid despite the respondent’s possession of the property. He further contended that the respondent’s fostering by Pochaiah does not legally confer rights to Pochaiah’s property. Learned counsel for the appellants further criticized the trial court for holding that the appellants approached the trial Court with unclean hands, asserting that the evidence does not support such a conclusion. Therefore, he prayed the Court