HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT:

The Second Appeal is filed questioning the judgment and decree, dated 13.09.2023, passed by the Principal District Judge, Adilabad in A.S.No.14 of 2020, whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree, dated 19.12.2019, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad in O.S.No.1 of

2011 was confirmed.

2. The appellants herein are defendants and respondents herein are plaintiffs in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case, which led to filing of the present Second Appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition of the suit schedule properties 1 to 4 and separate possession and also seeking a direction to Tahsildar, Adilabad to incorporate their names in the revenue records by cancelling the name of defendant No.1 as pattedar and cultivator in suit schedule properties Nos.1 to 4 in form No.7, I(B) and in pahanies and other relevant revenue documents. In the plaint, it is averred that late Yelti Naga Reddy was the common ancestor. During the lifetime of late Yelti Naga Reddy he married to Yelti Linga and through her he got one son namely Yelti Ganga Reddy. After the death of Yelti linga, Yelti Naga Reddy married plaintiff No.1 and through her, he got three daughters i.e., plaintiff Nos.2 to 4. The said Yelti Naga Reddy died leaving behind his wife/plaintiff No.1 and his daughters/plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 besides his son Yelti Ganga Reddy. Thereafter, Yelti Ganga Reddy died leaving behind defendant Nos.1 to 3 as his legal heirs. Though, Late Yelti Naga Reddy acquired the ownership and possession over the suit schedule properties 1 to 4 as legal successors, after death of late Yelti Naga Reddy, the plaintiffs and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of itself. The plaintiff No.1 filed an application for mutation of her name and she came to know that defendant No.1 in collusion with revenue authorities recorded her name and obtained proceedings in the year 2009 and she tried to alienate the suit schedule property. Hence, suit for partition and prayed to pass preliminary decree.

4. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed Written Statement denying all the facts and averments of the plaint and admitted that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of Yelti Naga Reddy. It is averred that there was oral family settlement in between Yelti Naga Reddy and his son Yelti Ganga Reddy and plaintiffs about 15 years back with regard to suit schedule property. As per the said settlement, lands admeasuring Ac.4-68 cents situated in Sy.No.1/3, lands admeasuring Ac.1-15 cents situated in Sy.No.2/1, lands admeasuring Ac.0-45 cents situated in Sy.No.2/2 and house bearing No.2-132/1 fell into the share of Yelti Ganga Reddy and lands admeasuring Ac.2-00 situated in Sy.No.1/3 and house bearing No.2-70 fell to the share of plaintiff No.1 for her life time and thereafter, lands admeasuring Ac.2-00 fell into the share of the plaintiff No.2 and Rs.15,000/- each was given to plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 towards their share in the presence of elders. Due to ill-health suffered by Yelti Ganga Reddy, defendant No.1 got transferred the suit lands to Tippireddy Satish Reddy/defendant No.4 under registered sale deed dated 10.05.2010 stating that she sold the said lands only to discharge debts and to meet legal necessity of her joint family and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4(ii) Defendant No.4 filed written statement adopting the written statement filed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 and stated that defendant No.1 sold the lands to him for the purpose of marriage of defendant No.3 and to meet legal necessity of her family under registered sale deed No.3408/2010, dated

10.05.2010 and he got mutated his name and prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Based on the above pleadings made by both parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:-

i) Whether there was oral family settlement as contended by defendants?

ii) Whether