THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) NO.15356 OF 2005 IN/AND APPEAL SUIT NO.2784 OF 2004

COMMON JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2004 in O.S.No.22 of 2002 on the file of District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 11 in the suit. The parties herein are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the suit.

2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the younger brother of defendant Nos.4 to 6 and the younger brother of the father of defendant Nos.1 to 3, namely late Dayakar Reddy. Defendant No.7 is the younger sister of plaintiff, while defendant No.6 is his elder sister. Dayakar Reddy passed away in 1994, leaving behind defendant Nos.1 to 3 as his sons and defendant No.11 as his wife. The plaintiff's father, Ranga Reddy, passed away in 1973, and their mother, Devakamma, passed away in 1996, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant Nos.4 to 7 as her legal heirs.

3. The suit lands are joint family properties that need to be partitioned by metes and bounds. The joint family consists of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7. The family owns extensive agricultural lands and a residential house. In 1975, the Andhra Pradesh Land Ceiling Act (for short the Act’) came into existence, and the plaintiff and his brothers filed declarations under the Act. The Land Reforms Tribunal treated all agricultural lands as Hindu Undivided Joint Family properties and computed the shares accordingly.

4. The plaintiff requested defendant Nos.1 to 5 to partition the joint family properties on 08.06.2001, but they refused. The plaintiff also sought help from common friends and relatives to prevail upon the defendants to partition the properties. However, the defendants remain adamant and refused to partition. As a result, the plaintiff filed the suit.

5. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 11 filed a written statement denying the existence of a joint family between the plaintiff and themselves. They claimed that the plaintiff's allegations of joint possession of the suit lands were false and invented for the purpose of suit. According to the defendants, Dayakar Reddy, the father of defendant Nos.1 to 3, passed away in 1994, and his name was replaced by his sons in the revenue records. The defendants stated that their ancestor, Venkat Reddy, died in 1947, leaving behind three sons namely Narsimha Reddy, Ram Reddy and Ranga Reddy who succeeded his properties. They claimed that defendant Nos.1 to 3 sold some of the lands to defendant Nos.8 to10 under a registered sale deed in September 1999 and put them in possession. The defendant Nos.8 to10 are alleged to be bona fide purchasers who have installed a bore well in the land. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 further claimed that there was an oral partition among the brothers during 1968, which was acted upon by them. As per the alleged partition, specific lands fell to the share of Dayakar Reddy, who was in exclusive possession of those lands. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 provided details of the lands that allegedly fell to the share of each brother, including Dayakar Reddy, Prabhakar Reddy (the plaintiff), Karunakar Reddy, and Sudhakar Reddy. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 claim that after the partition, each party is in exclusive possession of the lands that fell to their respective shares. The revenue records were mutated accordingly. They state that a house bearing No.5-1-166 at Jambagh, Hyderabad, was purchased out of joint family nucleus, and plaintiff took the share of wet land, which is more fertile and costly.

6. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 further claimed that in the declarations made under the Act, each party showed the lands that fell to their respective shares, and the Land Reforms Tribunal accepted the same. As such, neither the plaintiff nor the other defendants can now claim joint family status and joint possession of the lands. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 also point out that the plaintiff sold some of his lands allotted to his sha