IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO APPEAL SUIT NO.465 OF 2023 DATED: 21^st APRIL, 2026 Between Renuguntla Raghavender .. Appellant-Defendant No.4 Vs.

1. Smt. Renuguntla Padma @ Spandana, W/o.Late Madhava Rao, Aged: 44 years, Occ: House hold, R/o.H.No.11-9-60/B, Lakshminagar Colony, Ranga Reddy District and another.

.. Respondents-Plaintiffs

3. Reniguntla Balamani (died as per LRs D2 to D5), and 3 others.

.. Respondents-Defendant Nos.1, 2, 3 & 5 This Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This Memorandum of Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in OS.No.438 of 2010, dated 06.10.2023.

2. Appellant is the defendant No.4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. Respondent Nos.3 to 6 are defendant Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 in OS No.438 of 2010.

3. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 - defendant Nos.2 and 3 remained ex parte in the suit.

4.1. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs have filed suit under Section 26 r/w Order 7 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC against the appellant and respondent Nos.3 to 6 seeking partition and separate possession in respect of plaint schedule ‘A’ to ‘L’ properties (herein after referred to as suit schedule property).

4.2. The prayer in the suit is to pass a preliminary decree of 1/5th share to respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs and 1/5th share to rest of the defendants (respondent Nos.3 to 6 and appellant herein).

5. It is stated in the plaint that Late Renuguntla Chandrashekar during his life time has purchased plot bearing No.18, admeasuring 426 square yards in survey Nos.63, 67, 72 and 73 of Gaddenaram Village, Saroornagar Panchayat, presently known as Kamalanagar, Dilsukhnagar, Ranga Reddy District in the name of his wife (respondent No.3 – defendant No.1). Respondent No.1-plaintiff No.1 husband by name Madhava Rao is the son of R.Chandrashekar and that they constitute joint family. The plot was given for development to a developer who constructed a complex and named as Balajinivas Residential Complex. Respondent No.2-plaintiff No.2 is the grand-son of R.Chandrashekhar. Madhava Rao died on 10.07.2007 leaving behind respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs as his legal heirs and they constitute joint family. As the respondent Nos.3 to 6- defendants and appellant-defendant No.4 neglected the respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs thereby she filed DVC before the XI M.M. Court, Cyberabad, at L.B. Nagar. All the parties are having share in the suit schedule property. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs have equal right along with respondent Nos.3 to 6 - defendants and appellant-defendant No.4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs demanded partition, mediations have taken but all went in vain and finally they got issued legal notice on 18.10.2009 for partition of the suit schedule property.

6. Respondent No.3-defendant No.1 has filed written statement on 21.12.2011 stating that plot admeasuring 426 square yards was purchased by her through a registered Sale Deed bearing document No.127 of 1981, dated 06.01.1981 with her savings and by disposing of gold ornaments. It is not the joint family property. A development agreement was entered between her with the developer on 24.02.2002. Her son by name Madhava Rao has nothing to do with the said development agreement as the property is her exclusive property. She was arrested in connection with a criminal case and was released on bail later on. She has alienated land admeasuring 58 square yards by way of Registered Sale Deed dated 07.08.1989 vide document No.11390 and the land left over is 368 square yards which was given for development. Respondent No.3-Defendant No.1 is residing in one flat and the other properties are alienated and mortgaged by her for the purpose of marriages and to clear the debts and loans raised. The schedule boundary stated in the plaint are imaginary and no property exists, t