THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed under Section 96, read with order 41 rule 1 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree passed in OS No.770 of 2008 on the file of the IX Additional District and Session Judge (FTC), Rangareddy District, at LB Nagar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants/plaintiffs herein have filed a suit for partition of the suit schedule property seeking partition of the suit schedule property into five equal shares and to allot of one such share each to the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendants Nos.1 to 3.

3. The contention of the plaintiffs are that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the daughters, defendants Nos.1 and 2 are the sons and defendant No.3 is the wife of late G.Malla Reddy S/o. Narayan Reddy. Originally, Sri Narayan Reddy who was the grandfather of the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos.1 and 2 along with his brothers was the owner of the land bearings admeasuring 05.29 gts in Sy.No.439 of Gundlapochampally, Ranga Reddy District. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the said Narayan Reddy had orally partitioned the said property and in the said partition, Narayan Reddy had got 1/4^th property share i.e., Ac.01.17 gts in Sy No.435-part which is the suit schedule property. It is further contended that after the death of their grandfather, his son Manikya Reddy and Malla Reddy inherited the land to an extent of Ac.01.17 gts out of Ac.05.29 gts in Sy No.435 of Gundlapochampally Village. The name of Manikya Reddy was incorporated in the revenue records as patteder and possessor as he was the elder son of G. Narayan Reddy.

4. The said G.Manikya Reddy and G.Malla Reddy partitioned all family properties between themselves orally and the suit schedule property fell to the share of G.Malla Reddy, accordingly, the names of plaintiffs’ father was also incorporated in the revenue records and in the capacity as L.Rs of said G.Malla Reddy, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are equally entitled for 1/5th share each, the suit schedule property. It is further contended that on 19.07.2008, the plaintiffs demanded the defendant Nos.1 to 3 for partition of the suit schedule property, however, the defendants informed to plaintiffs that the suit schedule property was alienated to third parties and that in turn the third parties have alienated the property to defendant Nos.4 and 5. As the defendant Nos.1 to 3 refused to partition the suit schedule property and give the separate possession, as such the present suit was filed seeking partition and 1/4^th share and seeking five equal shares and one such share to the plaintiffs and defendants.

5. Before the trial Court, defendants Nos.1 to 3 & 5 remained ex- parte and only the defendant No.4 filed a written statement and defendant No.4 admitted that the said suit schedule property was purchased by him, which was sold by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, vide registered sale dated 10.05.1989 for a total sale consideration of Rs.18,800/-, who in turn sold it to Verma Overseas Private Limited through a registered sale deed dated 27.11.1988 and the said Varma Overseas Private Limited in turn sold the said property of Ac.01.10 gts to defendant No.4 through a registered sale deed dated 31.7.2000 and the name of the defendant No.4 was also mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbook and the title deeds were also issued in the name of defendant No.4.

6. It is further contended that the plaintiffs got the suit filed in collusion with the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and that the father of the plaintiffs have already sold the property to the defendant No.4, as such the question of partition of the property does not arise, so also the defendant No.5 filed the written statement retreating the averments made by the defendant No.4 and also contended that the plaintiff's father sold the property to the one Amaran Chinna Reddy through document No.3436/1989 dated 10.05.1989, and the said Chinna Reddy gifted 7 guntas out of Ac.01.17 gts in su