HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA A.S.No. 965 OF 2008

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the judgment dismissing O.S. No. 42 of

2006, dated 31.07.2008 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, the unsuccessful plaintiff preferred this Appeal.

2. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

3. The Undisputed Facts are:

Plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2 are sons; Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are daughters and Defendant No. 6 is wife of one Komakula Ramaswamy, who died intestate on 05.11.1998. Plaintiff was an employee of Singareni Collieries, Mandamarri. Defendant No.1 is a teacher and Defendant No. 2 is an Assistant Engineer, Panchayat Raj, and both of them are residing at Karimnagar. Marriages of Defendants 3 to 5 were performed by K. Ramaswamy during his lifetime.

The case of plaintiff is that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of their family and after the death of their father, his undivided share was also devolved on himself and Defendants 1 and 2 and all of them constructed houses with their own funds and are living separately. At the time of marriage of Defendants 3 to 5, their father gave land of Ac. 0-4 gts in Survey No. 1/E D1, who is managing the suit lands, tried to sell some of the properties in collusion with Defendant No.2 to deprive plaintiff’s rights. When he approached them on 30.04.2006, they denied for partition of suit schedule properties. Hence, the suit for partition of suit schedule properties.

4. The 1st Defendant filed written statement stating that suit schedule properties are not ancestral properties of the family, but were acquired by their father. Defendants 3 to 5 were not given any land by their father at the time of their marriage equally. Defendant No.1 was given Ac. 0-01½ gts; plaintiff and Defendant No.2 were given old house with equal shares. By demolishing the old house, plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 constructed their houses separately and plaintiff constructed a house in the land given to him. Since the date of partition, they are in possession and management of their respective allotted lands. Defendant No.1 used to take care of his parents. Suit schedule property lands were already partitioned on 11.03.1989 among their father, mother (D6), plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and a simple partition deed was also executed to that effect. Hence, the question of partitioning the land again does not arise. After partition, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds to plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2. Plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2 sold Ac. 1.00 gts in Survey No. 812 under a registered document dated 05.08.2002, of which Plaintiff’s land of Ac. 0-17 gts, Defendant No.1’s land of Ac. 0-17 gts and Defendant No.2’s land of Ac.0-06 gts, were included. Defendant No.1 purchased Ac. 0-10 gts belonging to Kondabathula Rajamma, W/o Mallaiah in Survey No. 137. It is denied that plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2 were in joint possession of the property.

5. Defendant No.2 filed written statement on the same lines of written statement of Defendant No.1. Defendants 3 to 5 remained ex parte. Defendant No.6 died leaving plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as her legal heirs.

6. Though plaintiff tried to project that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and not partitioned, in cross- examination, he admitted that the properties were purchased by his father alone and neither plaintiff nor Defendants 1 and 2 contributed any amount for purchase of the same. Thus, it is clear, plaintiff has not come with true facts even about the nature of the properties of his father. The suit schedule properties are self-acquired properties of Ramaswamy – father of plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2.

7. Regarding Ex. B-1 unstamped partition deed, plaintiff contended that it is an unregistered one and un-stamped partition deed is required to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. It cannot even be looked into for collateral purpose in view of Section 91 of the