THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.48 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada)

This is an appeal filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 10.12.2013, passed in O.S.No.645 of 2007 by the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge (F.T.C.) City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the trial Court”).

2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is plaintiff before the trial Court. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The brief facts of the case before the trial Court are that one Dasharatha Bai @ Devaki Bai is the mother of plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 5 and the wife of defendant No.1 and that she was the absolute owner and possessor of the open agricultural land bearing Survey Nos.219, 220 and 225 admeasuring Ac.01-03 guntas situated at Gudimalkapur Village, Near Langerhouse, Hyderabad. The same was acquired by virtue of partition decree dated 01.08.1985 in O.S.No.110 of 1970 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and that after final decree proceedings and as per the directions of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the possession was delivered to Dasharath Bai @ Devaki Bai through an advocate commissioner, which is the A-schedule property. Defendant No.1 is the father of plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 5. After obtaining the A-schedule property, the plaintiff’s parents have developed the A-schedule property by constructing a function hall under the name and style of “D.S.Function Hall” in an area of 3500 Sq.yards and in the remaining portion on the road side, they constructed 28 shops which are given on lease to the third parties by the defendants. The father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 i.e. defendant No.1 herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing No.18-3-615 to 617, house area of 300 square yards situated at Laldarwaza main road, Hyderabad having acquired through ancestors and in which the entire family were residing since last 40 years, which is the B-schedule property.

4. It is their further case that the father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.18-6-711 to 716 admeasuring 320 Sq.Yards situated at Laldarwaza and the same is purchased from its absolute owners and possessors with joint family funds and that there was a house constructed along with mulgies in the said plot but the same was demolished by defendant No.1 to construct new house and as such, at present it is vacant and defendant No.1 has sold part of the land to an extent of 20 Sq.yards for joint family necessities in which a shop is being run under the name and style of “Anil Sweet House” which is described under C-schedule property. Thus, A to C schedules constitutes the suit schedule properties.

5. It is their case that the mother of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 passed away on 06.02.2006 leaving behind defendant No.1 i.e. her husband and four sons i.e. defendants 2 to 5 and their daughter i.e. the plaintiff as her legal heirs. It is the further case of the plaintiff that during the life time of Dasharatha Bai or even after her death, no partition was effected in between the plaintiff and defendants. Thus, the plaintiffs and defendants are in joint possession of the suit lands. After the death of Dasharatha Bai, the plaintiff was allotted an amount of Rs.1500/- per month out of the joint family income from the rents and function hall in schedule-A properties and that the defendant No.1 used to deposit the same in the plaintiff’s bank account which is opened by defendant No.1 in the name of plaintiff. That the rents derived are more than 3,500/- per month per shop and as such, there are 28 shops to which total rents comes to Rs.98,000/- per month, apart from the income derived fro