THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2016 passed in O.S.No.216 of 2012 by the learned XII Additional District Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, the present Appeal Suit is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff claimed that she and defendant No.1 were joint owners of agricultural lands measuring a total of Ac.11.00 guntas in Murthujaguda Village, Ranga Reddy District, which originally belonged to their mother, late Bomma Bagamma. She alleged that Bagamma had acquired part of the land from her maternal uncle and purchased the rest with her earnings, making it her absolute self-acquired property. After the death of Bagamma intestate, the plaintiff and defendant No.1, as her only surviving legal heirs, were entitled to equal shares. However, defendant No.1 got the property mutated solely in his name and sold Ac.2.00 guntas to defendant No.2, who in turn sold it to defendant No.3. The plaintiff contended that no partition had taken place, and the sale transactions were invalid as against her half share. She sought partition of the property into two equal shares and separate possession of her share.

3. On the other hand, defendant No.1 and his legal heirs i.e., defendant Nos.5, 6, and 10 to 13 denied the claim of the plaintiff, contending that the property was not Bagamma’s absolute property but the joint family property of defendant No.1 and his father, Venkaiah. They claimed that Bagamma had executed a Will dated 23.03.1983 in favour of defendant No.1 and his sons, making them absolute owners. They argued that the plaintiff, married before the Hindu Succession Act amendments, had no share and that her suit was barred by limitation. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 claimed to be bona fide purchasers for value, having bought the land after verifying revenue records and developing it. They alleged the suit was collusive between the plaintiff and first defendant to deprive them of their land.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed eight issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PW.1 was examined and Ex.A1 to A9 are marked. DWs.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked on behalf of the defendants.

5. After examining the evidence, the trial Court, vide order dated 21.06.2016, decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff proved the suit property was the absolute property of late Bagamma through consistent oral evidence and documentary proof (Exs.A1 to A6), and the defendants failed to establish that it was joint family property. The alleged Will (Ex.B1) was found to be fabricated, with contradictions in the defendants’ pleadings, absence of examination of attesting witnesses, and suspicious circumstances such as inclusion of a beneficiary not yet born at the time of its purported execution. The trial Court concluded that Bagamma died intestate, and the plaintiff and defendant No.1 succeeded equally to the property. The sale of Ac.2-00 guntas by defendant No.1 to defendant No.2, and subsequently to defendant Nos.3 and 4, did not affect the right of the plaintiff, though defendant Nos.3 and 4 could work out equities in the share of defendant No.1. Further, the trial Court granted the plaintiff half share in the property with costs, and allotting the other half to the legal heirs of defendant No.1. Aggrieved by the said judgment, appellants/defendant Nos.5, 6 and 10 to 13 filed the present appeal suit.

6. Heard Sri M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Sri M.V. Suresh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment and decree under appeal were illegal, unlawful, contrary to law, and against the facts on record and that the trial Court ought to have seen that the suit schedule property originally belonged to the ancestors of late Bomma Vittalaiah, but the patta stood in the name of Bomma Bagamma, his mother and the mother of r