IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Date : 13.03.2026 Between:

Sri Khanapur Venkatalaxmi Narsihma Murthy …Appellant &

Smt S.Jayalaxmi and others …Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Mr.Sridhar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B.Shanker, learned counsel for the respondents.

1. The City Civil Court Appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant No.1 under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.01.2015 passed in O.S.No.38 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The plaintiffs/respondents herein filed the suit seeking partition of plaint A, B and C schedule properties by metes and bounds, allotment of their legitimate shares and for passing a final decree.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are herein after referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court.

3. Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 herein, and others earlier filed OS No.38 of 2005 under Section 26 order 7 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC seeking for partition of plaint A, B, and C schedule properties by metes and bounds, allotment of the plaintiffs’ legitimate share.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are the daughters, defendant No.1 is the only son, and defendant No.2 is the third daughter of Late Sri K. Venkat Rao and Late Smt. Kanpur Bharathi @ Padmavati. Defendants 3 to 5 are tenants in different portions of the suit schedule properties. Smt. Kanpur Bharathi died intestate on 26-12-1994, leaving behind the following immovable properties:

Schedule A & B: Plot No. 32 and House No. 5-3-2005 to 2006 at Jeera Compound, Secunderabad.

Schedule C: A vacant plot admeasuring 102 sq. yards with House No. 1-10-304, Brahmanwadi, Begumpet

5. Defendant No.1, being the old son, received education and employment support from his parents and later shifted to Bagh Lingampally after marriage. The plaintiffs also obtained education and employment, and their marriages were performed by the parents with contribution from the plaintiffs and defendant No.2. Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 spent their own earnings on their marriages as they had been working for 3–4 years prior thereto.

6. After the marriages of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2, defendant No.1 returned and requested accommodation. He was permitted to occupy one room on the first floor of the Schedule-A property. Schedule- B property originally belonged to the mother. Plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had earlier sold it to Sri Jitender Parikh with an agreement for reconveyance in favour of the mother. During her lifetime, the mother repaid part of the sale consideration but could not complete the reconveyance. The family continued in possession. After the mother’s death on 26-12-1994, defendant No.1 filed O.S. No. 408/1997 for partition of Schedule-A and B properties against the father, plaintiffs, and defendant No.2. The suit was dismissed for default on 11-12-2003.

7. The mother had permitted the plaintiffs to construct their own portions in the schedule properties. Plaintiff No.s 1 to 3 constructed their respective portions with their own money, and Plaintiff No.4 constructed two rooms in Schedule-A. Later, at the request of the plaintiffs’ father, the reconveyance charges for Schedule-B were paid to Sri Jitender Parikh by Plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendant No.2. Consequently, a registered sale deed No. 57/02 dated 21-01-2002 was executed in the father’s name. Defendant No.1 did not contribute any amount and therefore has no right over Schedule-B property. Defendants 3 to 5 are tenants of portions of Schedule-A and B properties and used to pay rent (exclusive of electricity, water, and maintenance) to the plaintiffs’ father. After his demise, the plaintiffs, defendant No.1, and defendant No.2 became entitled to receive the rents, but the tenants have not paid rents to the successors.

8. Therefore, Schedule-A belonged to the mother, each of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and