THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVLI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY APPEAL SUIT. No. 815 of 2013 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy This Appeal Suit is filed by the appellant/defendant No.4 against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2012 in O.S. No.344 of 2008 on the file of III Additional District Court (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, whereby the suit instituted by the respondent No.1/plaintiff against the defendant Nos.1 to 5 for partition in respect of suit schedule property was preliminarily decreed in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their status before the Trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS

3. The sole plaintiff i.e., respondent No.1 herein filed the suit vide O.S. No.344 of 2008 against defendant Nos.1 to 5 for partition of suit schedule “A” to “E” properties. The case of the respondent No.1/plaintiff is that late Laxminarayana is her father and husband of defendant No.1 and grandfather of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Late Laxminarayana, who possessed the suit schedule properties, died intestate leaving behind the respondent No.1/plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 as his legal heirs. Thus, the respondent No.1/plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are in joint possession of the plaint schedule property after the demise of the said original owner, Late Laxminarayana. The respondent No.1/plaintiff being one of the coparceners claimed entitlement to 2/6^th share in the schedule of property and accordingly when she demanded the defendants for partition, the defendants sought to alienate the suit schedule property to third parties. According to the respondent No.1/plaintiff, the alienations allegedly made by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5 are neither valid nor binding upon her.

4. The defendant No.4 filed a written statement and contended that defendant Nos.1 to 3 alone were the owners of the schedule property and that they had validly executed document bearing No. 3344 dated 09.03.2006 to an extent of Ac.0.35 guntas and document No.13194 dated 14.12.2005 in sy.No.180 admeasuring Ac.0.22 guntas and document bearing No.2229 dated 16.02.2006 in Sy.No.179 and 227 admeasuring Ac.0.22 guntas. It was further submitted that the respondent No.1/plaintiff is neither a coparcener nor a co-member of the joint family; that she had severed from joint family long back and hence, she does not have any subsisting right or interest in the suit property. It is further stated that only after due verification of the documents, defendant No.4 had purchased the property being a bonafide purchaser for value and that the present suit was filed to harass defendant No.4 and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed.

II. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIAL COURT

5. Basing on the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the plaint schedule property is the joint family property of plaintiff and D-1 to D-3?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the plaint schedule property into six shares and for allotment of 2/6^th share to her?

3) To what relief?

III. EVIDENCE ON RECORD

6. During the course of trial, the respondent No.1/plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and another as PW2 and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked on her behalf. On the other hand, though defendant No.4 was examined as DW1 and marked Exs.B1 to B3, failed to present himself for cross examination and thus, the chief examination affidavit of DW1 was eschewed from the record on

07.112.2011.

IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT

7. Upon consideration of the rival contentions and material on record, the trial Court passed a preliminary decree in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff as prayed for.

8. Aggrieved by the preliminary decree, the defendant No.4 filed the present Appeal to set aside the impugned judgment and decree.

9. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and peruse