THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY City Civil Court Appeal No. 291 of 2003 and Civil Revision Petition Nos. 5194, 5329 and 6495 of 2005 DATE: 12.03.2026 City Civil Court Appeal No. 291 of 2003 Between:

Smt. A.R. Hemavathy (died) per LRs and others … Appellants And A.D. Venkatesh … Respondent Civil Revision Petition No. 5194 of 2005 Between:

A.R. Jagannath and another … Petitioners And A.D. Venkatesh and another … Respondents Civil Revision Petition No. 5329 of 2005 Between:

A.R. Jagannath and another … Petitioners And A.D. Venkatesh … Respondent Civil Revision Petition No. 6495 of 2005 Between:

A.R. Jagannath and another … Petitioners And A.D. Venkatesh … Respondent COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Honourable Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy The present appeal, being C.C.C.A. No. 291 of 2003 is preferred by the Appellant/Plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree dated 09.06.2003 passed in O.S. No. 124 of 1999, on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant seeking partition in respect of the suit schedule property, came to be dismissed with costs.

2. Inasmuch as the parties and the substantial questions arising for consideration in the aforesaid City Civil Court Appeal as well as in the connected Civil Revision Petition Nos.5194, 5329 and 6495 of 2005 are identical, all the matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court in C.C.C.A. No. 291 of 2003.

I. BRIEF FACTS

4. The underlying suit in O.S.No.124 of 1999, out of which the present pleadings arise was filed by the sole plaintiff (Ms.A.R. Hemavathy) against the sole defendant (A. D. Venkatesh), who is her younger brother, seeking partition of the plaint schedule property bearing No.10-2-328, comprising Plot No.213 situated at Road No.8, West Marredpally, Secunderabad, by dividing the same into two equal shares and allotting one such share to the plaintiff with separate possession.

5. The plaintiff (A.R. Hemavathy) and the defendant (A.D. Venkatesh) are the children of late Saraswathi Bai, who died intestate on 09.01.1963, leaving behind the plaintiff, the defendant, and their father A. Devarajan, as her legal heirs. The plaint schedule property was purchased by Saraswathi Bai in 1949.

6. After the demise of Saraswathi Bai, the plaintiff continued to live in the suit property along with her father. Even after the defendant moved to Bangalore in 1971, the plaintiff and her family took care of their aged father till his death on 25.05.1993. The husband of the plaintiff and later by her son made payments to her father and brother.

7. The defendant claimed exclusive ownership of the suit property based on a Will dated 22.10.1972 said to have been executed by his father Devarajan. The said Will deed was produced by the defendant during rent control proceedings and then as claimed by the plaintiff that she came to know that the suit property originally belonged to her mother and that she being a legal heir entitled to a share therein. The plaintiff disputes the genuineness and validity of the said Will, alleging fraud, suppression of material facts, and suspicious circumstances.

8. Despite the plaintiff asserting her right, the defendant had initiated eviction proceedings and is attempting to sell the property to third parties, thereby threatening to deprive the plaintiff of her lawful share in the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit for partition and separate possession of the share of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property.

9. In response to the aforesaid plaint averments, the defendants filed a written statement denying all the allegations made by the plaintiff and contended that the suit schedule property did not belong to the mother of plaintif