THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant Nos.1 and 2-plaintiff Nos.1 and

3 aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit filed by them seeking the relief of partition and separate possession in O.S No.349 of 2013 by the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, vide judgment dated 29.04.2016.

2. The appellant Nos.1 and 2 along with the respondent No.2 (plaintiff No.2) filed the suit for partition contending that they along with respondent No.1 (defendant) were the children of Sri P. Balamallaiah. The suit schedule property bearing Municipal No.19-1-184 admeasuring 162 sq. yds., situated at Dood Bowli, Chatkanipura, Hyderabad, belonged to Smt. P. Neelamma, their paternal grandmother, who purchased the same through registered sale deed document No.1102/1356 Fasli dated 28^th Amardad 1356 Fasli. Smt. P. Neelamma died intestate on 08.11.1990 leaving behind her, her daughter Devamma and son P.Balamallaiah as her legal heirs. Sri P. Balamallaiah, father of the plaintiffs and defendant died in the month of December, 1996, leaving behind him the plaintiffs and the defendant as his legal heirs. The mother of the plaintiffs and defendant pre-deceased her husband P. Balamallaiah. Smt. Devamma was residing at Nizamabad. Her husband died earlier and she had no issues. She died at Nizamabad on 25.08.2011. The plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, after their marriages were residing at Nizamabad along with their respective husbands, while the plaintiff No.3 was residing in a portion of the suit schedule property, even after her marriage along with her husband and children. After the death of Devamma, the plaintiffs demanded the defendant for partition of the suit schedule property and to deliver their separate shares, but the defendant was evading and avoiding to do so. The defendant wanted to usurp the entire schedule property. He bore grudge against the plaintiffs, more particularly, against the plaintiff No.3, who was residing in a portion of the suit schedule property and started harassing her and her family members. In furtherance of his intention, on the intervening night of 21/22 November, 2012, the defendant along with unsocial elements tried to dispossess the plaintiff No.3. The plaintiff No.3 gave police complaint and thereafter filed O.S. No.2650 of 2012 against the defendant seeking relief of perpetual injunction in the court of XX-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained interim injunction. The defendant appeared in the said case and filed counter and written statement. He claimed ownership rights in respect of the entire schedule property. The defendant falsely alleged that Smt. P. Neelamma during her lifetime bequeathed the property in favour of her daughter Devamma and that Devamma gifted the property in favour of defendant through registered gift deed vide document No.985 of 2004 dated 03.07.2004. The plaintiff contended that Smt. P. Neelamma never executed any Will bequeathing the schedule property in favour of Devamma. The defendant created the gift deed to usurp the schedule property to deprive the plaintiffs their due shares. The plaintiffs were not aware about the execution of the gift deed by Devamma. The schedule property belonged to Smt. P. Neelamma and after her death and after the death of her son and daughter, the plaintiffs being the grand daughters were having equal shares along with the defendant and as such, filed the suit for partition and to pass a preliminary decree by allotting 3/4^th share to the plaintiffs.

3. The defendant filed written statement admitting his relationship with the plaintiffs and that they were the children of Sri P. Balamallaiah. Smt. P. Neelamma, their paternal grandmother, was the original owner of the schedule property. He contended that he acquired the suit schedule property from his ancestors legally and was in occupation of the same as its lawful owner. Since the plaintiff No.3 migrated to Hyderabad from Nizamabad and was looking