THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.30 OF 2019

JUDGMENT:

This is an appeal filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 31.10.2018 passed in O.S.No.542 of 2013 by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short “the trial Court”).

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants 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 case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that the plaintiff is the son and defendant No.2 is the daughter of defendant No.1 and late Yepuri Satyanarayana i.e. the common ancestor. The plaintiff and defendant No.2 are the children of Yepuri Satyanarayana, while defendant No.1 is the wife of Satyanarayana. During his life time said Yepuri Satyanarayana has purchased the suit schedule property in a dilapidated condition by selling away the ancestral old house standing in the name of his grandfather Narsaiah at Khammam. Thereafter, he got demolished the old house and reconstructed the same in the year 1986 with all amenities. At the time of construction, the plaintiff was running a Kirana shop and working as a part-time house broker and he invested his earnings in the said construction. It is his case that he got married on 07.03.1996 and that he has also performed the marriage of defendant No.2 by giving Rs.3 Lakhs, 15 tulas of gold wroth Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry. Subsequently, due to differences between the defendant No.2 and her husband, their relationship got severed by divorce within a period of one year. Thereafter, defendant No.2 was staying along with her parents and the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. Subsequently, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have started showing a differential attitude against the plaintiff and his family and they have kicked them out of the house and surprisingly their father Yepuri Satyanarayana also supported them. Eversince then, the plaintiff is not in talking terms with his parents and defendant No.2. Subsequently, defendant No.2 got remarried to one Surender Reddy and that the plaintiff has demanded his father Yepuri Satyanarayana several times for partition of suit schedule property but his efforts went in vain. On 20.11.2012, he came to know that his father fell sick and thus, he visited his father and requested for partition but his father as well as defendant Nos.1 and

2 refused for the partition. But his father has informed him that his right in the suit schedule property will be reserved. During ten days prior to the death of his father, the plaintiff has served him by giving medicines and fruits and on 24.11.2012, Yepuri Satyanarayana expired and he performed the last rites of his father by incurring expenditure. Again after completion of the formalities, he requested defendants for partition of suit schedule property but they did not agreed for the same. ON 24.12.2012, he has obtained an encumbrance certificate through which he came to know that his father has executed a gift deed in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of the suit schedule property vide document No.3701 of 2003 dated 03.12.2003 and in fact the father of the plaintiff has no right to execute the gift deed as the suit schedule property is an ancestral property. It is further averred that Yepuri Satyanarayana was seriously ill for more than 10 years before his death and as on the date of execution of gift deed also he was not in a position to attend the registrar office and taking advantage of his unsoundness of mind, the defendants have created the said gift deed with a malafide intention to usurp the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendants have filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and they further contended that the plaintiff is not the son of Yepuri Satyanarayana and defendant No.1 and that in fact he is the son of Nagabhu