THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.141 OF 2019

JUDGMENT:

This is an appeal filed by the appellants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 06.12.2018 passed in O.S.No.561 of 2009 by the learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short “the trial Court”).

2. The appellants herein are the defendant Nos.4, 5 and 8 to 11, respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 6 are the defendant Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 7 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 facts of the case before the trial Court are that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 6 are the daughters, defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the sons and defendant No.7 is the wife of one late Karan Singh Thakur and that during his life time Karan Singh Thakur has purchased the suit schedule house bearing No.9-8-47 admeasuring 637 Sq.yards, situated at Fateh Darwaza, Golconda Fort, Hyderabad with his funds but registered in the name of his minor son Thakur Rajender Singh. But unfortunately the minor son died before attaining the majority. As a result, late Karan Singh Thakur become the real owner and possessor, as it was purchased by his own funds. Subsequently, he died intestate leaving behind the parties herein as his successors.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that she came to know that the defendant Nos.4 and 5 who are his brothers are trying to sell away the property with a view to deceive the other members of the family, thus, she demanded for partition but the defendant Nos.4 and 5 did not come forward, she contacted other sisters also but they did not join her and therefore, she alone has filed the present suit seeking for partition of the suit schedule property.

5. The defendant No.7 has filed written statement admitting averments of the plaint and the same was adopted by the daughters i.e. defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 6.

6. The defendant Nos.4 and 5 have separately filed written statement contending that the plaintiff has filed a false suit and that they never intended to sell away the property. Further, they contended that the plaintiff has never approached them for partition and separate possession. It is contended that defendant No.7 is the mother of the plaintiff and defendants and that she is living in the suit schedule property and is getting rents approximately around Rs.9,000/- per month and that there are seven tenants residing in the suit schedule property and that defendant No.4 is in possession of one portion of the said property and that the plaintiff and defendants have wrongly furnished their address to be the suit schedule property but they are living away separately in their own households. It is further averred that the suit schedule property contains the temple known as Mata Mandir and a well in dilapidated condition. They further contended that their father has executed a Will deed on 04.04.1993 in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5 bequeathing the suit schedule property exclusively to both of them and that he left the Will deed with one of the close associates by name T.Gopal Singh, who has delivered it to them very recently through registered post and that they have come to know about the Will very recently and also that Gopal Singh has given reasons for the delay in sending the same. They further averred that though their mother knows about the Will deed she has not revealed about the existence of Will to defendant Nos.4 and 5 for the reasons best known to her and that defendant No.4 who is the elder son has taken over the responsibility of the family and has been bearing the burden along with his father and assisted him in performing the marriages of the last three sisters. It is further averred that as a minor son passed away, their father went into shock. That defendant No.1 has left his private job and the entire responsibility of the family fallen on defendant