Telangana High Court
M.Rajeshwar Rao vs Smt.N.K.Rajani on 17 October, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
I.A.No.2 of 2025
In/and
CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.79 of 2010
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2009 passed in O.S.No.649 of 2007 by the learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, the present City Civil Court Appeal is filed.
2. I.A.No.2 of 2025 is filed seeking to grant leave and receive the certified copy of the Will deed document No.158/III/2019 dated 23.09.2019 and death certificate dated 18.02.2022 as additional evidence on behalf of appellants.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit seeking partition of the suit schedule property into five equal shares and for allotment of one share each to themselves and defendants. The plaintiffs stated that defendant No.1 is their father, while defendants No.2 and 3 are their brother and sister. They claimed that their mother, 2 SKS,J CCCA.No.79 of 2010 Sarojini Devi, died intestate on 31.08.2001, leaving behind the suit schedule property, and that all her legal heirs, i.e., the plaintiffs and defendants, were entitled to succeed to it. The plaintiffs further alleged that after the death of their mother, there was an oral settlement among the parties, whereby the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 were to have a share in the first floor of the building to be constructed with joint family funds, while defendant No.2 was to take the ground floor and upper floors. It was further claimed that defendant Nos.1 and 2 obtained signatures of the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 on the pretext of executing a mortgage deed to obtain a loan, but instead fraudulently registered a release deed. Upon discovering the fraud, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice seeking partition, but the request was denied by defendants No.1 and 2, compelling them to file the suit.
4. On the other hand, defendants Nos.1 and 2 filed a common written statement denying the claims of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 stated that the suit schedule property was purchased with his own earnings and was only registered in the name of his wife Sarojini Devi as a benami. He denied the existence of any family settlement and alleged that the 3 SKS,J CCCA.No.79 of 2010 plaintiffs and defendant No.3 forcibly obtained his signature on non-judicial stamp papers. He claimed that he had spent substantial amounts for the marriages of the plaintiffs and provided them with gold and silver jewellery. He also stated that, having executed a registered release deed, the plaintiffs were now estopped from claiming any share in the suit property. Defendant No.3, however, filed a separate written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs and denied having voluntarily signed the release deed.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed three issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A1 to A5 are marked. DWs.1 and 2 are examined and Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of the defendants.
6. The trial Court, upon evaluating the evidence, found that the property stood in the name of Sarojini Devi, who died intestate. The trial Court held that defendant No.1 failed to discharge the burden of proving that the property was benami and purchased with his funds. The trial Court also noted that the so-called release deed (Ex.A2) was executed under suspicious circumstances, and no proper explanation was 4 SKS,J CCCA.No.79 of 2010 offered regarding its execution. The defendants failed to produce corroborative evidence or examine defendant No.2 or the attestors to support the claim that the release deed was voluntarily executed. The trial Court held that Ex.A2 appeared to have been executed under misrepresentation and fraud and thus could not be relied upon and that the Court fee paid was proper under Section 34(2) of the APCF and SV Act since the plaintiffs, being co-owners, were deemed to be in constructive possession. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit and passed a preliminary decree for partition of the suit schedule property into five equal shares, allotting one share each to the two plaintiffs and three defendants. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed the present city civil court appeal.
7. Heard Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri N. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Sri Ch. Venu Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
5
SKS,J CCCA.No.79 of 2010
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was contrary to law, the weight of evidence, and the overall probabilities of the case and that the trial Court erred in decreeing the suit based solely on assumptions and presumptions, ignoring material admissions and documentary evidence placed on record. He further submitted that the trial Court failed to properly consider the testimony of PW-3, who clearly admitted that appellant No.1 had taken a loan for purchasing the suit schedule property and had repaid the same, and that the wife of appellant No.1, Sarojini Devi, was not employed. This admission, it was argued, reinforced the case of the appellants that the property was purchased by appellant No.1 with his own funds, though registered in the name of his wife.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the trial Court erred in discarding the registered Release Deed dated 08.02.2007 (Ex.A2), which was executed by all legal heirs of Sarojini Devi, including the plaintiffs and defendant No.3, in favour of appellant No.1 and that the respondents themselves admitted to having signed the said document, and hence, the execution stood proved in view of 6 SKS,J CCCA.No.79 of 2010 Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act. The trial Court wrongly discarded the said document for want of examination of attesting witnesses, despite clear admission of execution by the parties themselves. He argued that no steps were taken by the respondents to cancel the release deed, nor did they file any complaint with the Sub-Registrar or police alleging fraud or misrepresentation and that the long silence on their part indicated that the document was voluntarily executed.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the trial Court wrongly believed Ex.A5, an unregistered document dated 16.05.2006 titled as a "Will," purportedly recording a family settlement. The said document was denied by appellant No.1, and in any event, being unregistered and prior in time to the registered release deed, it could not override the effect of Ex.A2. The trial Court failed to appreciate the legal position that a subsequent registered document would prevail over an earlier unregistered one and that the plaintiffs, being highly educated women, could not have mistakenly signed the release deed thinking it to be a mortgage deed, and their explanation lacked credibility. The trial Court, however, accepted their version without proper reasoning. 7
SKS,J CCCA.No.79 of 2010
11. The appellants further submitted that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit schedule property, either before or after the filing of the suit, and therefore, the trial Court erred in holding that Court fee paid under Section 34(2) of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act was correct and that proper Court fee ought to have been paid under Section 34(1), as the plaintiffs sought partition while being out of possession. He also argued that the burden of proving that the suit property was purchased by Sarojini Devi lay on the plaintiffs, but the trial Court wrongly shifted the burden to the appellants and decreed the suit without any corroborative evidence. The fact that the father of Sarojini Devi was financially weak and could not afford to perform her marriage, as evidenced by Ex.B1, further disproved the claim of the plaintiffs that the property was purchased with funds provided by her father or herself. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court by allowing this City Civil Court Appeal.
12. In addition to the appeal, the appellants filed an Interlocutory Application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC seeking to produce additional documents, namely the 8 SKS,J CCCA.No.79 of 2010 registered Will dated 23.09.2019 executed by appellant No.1 in favour of appellant No.2, and the death certificate of appellant No.1, who passed away on 22.01.2022 and that these documents could not be filed before the trial Court as they came into existence after the disposal of the suit and during the pendency of the appeal. The Will was registered with the Sub-Registrar, Maredpally, vide Doc.No.158/III/2019. The appellants submitted that these documents were necessary for the proper adjudication of the appeal and would establish the rights of appellant No.2 under the Will. The non-filing of the said documents in the trial Court was neither intentional nor deliberate but purely due to the subsequent events. Therefore, he prayed the Court to receive the additional documents.
13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no illegality in the judgment of the trial Court and that there are no merits in the appeal. He submitted that the trial Court did not draw any adverse inference from the written statement and decided the suit on merits before decreeing it. Therefore, there is no necessity to verify the pleadings by the sole surviving 9 SKS,J CCCA.No.79 of 2010 appellant, who never entered the witness box and thus has no locus standi to do so. He further submitted that, on the date of execution of the sale deed, the father had no right to bequeath the property, as it stood in the name of the surviving appellant. As such, no value can be attributed to the alleged Will deed. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the City Civil Court Appeal.
14. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are:
i. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a share in the suit schedule property?
ii. Whether the judgment of the trial Court requires any interference? If so, whether the matter can be remanded to the trial Court for receiving the alleged additional evidence and for hearing arguments afresh? Point Nos.i and ii:
15. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on 10 SKS,J CCCA.No.79 of 2010 record, it appears that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs, who are the daughters of defendant No.1, seeking partition of the suit schedule property. The case of the plaintiffs is that the property originally stood in the name of their mother, Sarojini Devi, who died intestate in the year 2001. As such, they, along with their siblings and father, being Class-I legal heirs, are entitled to equal shares in the property.
16. On the other hand, the defence set up by defendant No.1 before the trial Court was that the property, though registered in the name of his wife, was in fact purchased by him with his own earnings, and therefore, it did not constitute the absolute property of Sarojini Devi. However, there is no supporting documentary evidence placed on record to prove that the funds for the purchase emanated from defendant No.1. No receipts, bank statements, or other corroborative evidence were filed. Defendant No.1 also did not enter the witness box to testify in support of his claim, nor was any explanation offered for his failure to do so. In such circumstances, adverse inference can rightly be drawn against him under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. 11
SKS,J CCCA.No.79 of 2010
17. The version of the defendants that a registered release deed (Ex.A2) was executed by the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 relinquishing their rights in the property in favour of defendant No.1 was also found to be unconvincing. The evidence on record shows that the release deed was allegedly executed under the guise of executing mortgage documents. The attestors to Ex.A2 were not examined, and there is no satisfactory explanation from defendant No.1 or defendant No.2 as to the circumstances under which Ex.A2 came to be executed. The document itself recites that the release was made in lieu of maintenance of defendant No.1. However, it is admitted that defendant No.1 was receiving pension during that period and was not financially dependent on the plaintiffs. The recitals of Ex.A2 thus appear to be self-serving and not supported by material evidence. Hence, the trial Court rightly held that Ex.A2 was obtained by misrepresentation and undue influence.
18. Further, the surviving appellant contended that his father had executed a Will during his lifetime, bequeathing the entire property in his favour, and therefore, sought remand of the matter to the trial Court for examination of the Will as 12 SKS,J CCCA.No.79 of 2010 additional evidence. However, I.A.No.2 of 2025 is filed seeking permission to file the Will as additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. More importantly, as the property stood in the name of Sarojini Devi and not in the name of defendant No.1, he had no authority to execute a Will bequeathing the entire property. In the absence of any evidence to prove that the father was the exclusive owner of the property, the Will, even if it exists, would have no legal sanctity as against the shares of other Class-I heirs. Therefore, the plea for remand for examining the Will is without any merit.
19. It is an admitted fact that the mother of the plaintiffs died intestate, and the property stood in her name. In the absence of any acceptable evidence to the contrary, the presumption is that the property was her self-acquired property, and upon her death, it devolved equally upon her legal heirs, including the plaintiffs and defendants. The trial Court rightly held that the plaintiffs were entitled to their shares and passed a preliminary decree for partition. Therefore, there is no illegality in the judgment of the trial Court and there are no merits in the city civil court appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13
SKS,J CCCA.No.79 of 2010
20. Thus, the contention of the surviving appellant that the matter be remanded to examine the Will and to give effect to the alleged bequest made in his favour is without legal basis, and there is no necessity to remand the matter.
21. Accordingly, I.A.No.2 of 2025 is dismissed and consequently, this City Civil Court Appeal is also dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2009 passed in O.S.No.649 of 2007 by the learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 17.10.2025 SAI 14 SKS,J CCCA.No.79 of 2010 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA P.D. COMMON JUDGMENT IN I.A.No.2 of 2025 In/and CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.79 of 2010 Date: 17.10.2025 SAI