Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Viswanadharao Suryaprakasa Rao 2 Ors vs Viswanadharao Lakshmi Narasamma 5 Ors on 23 October, 2025
APHC010186632002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
THURSDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
APPEAL SUIT NO: 224 OF 2002
Between;
1. Viswanadharao Suryaprakasa Rao, S/o Gopayya, aged 45 years, R/o
Lakshminaraslmhapuram, Chintalapudi, West Godavari Dist.
2. Viswanadharao Venkateswara Rao, S/o Gopayya, afe 28 years, R/o
Lakshminarasimhapuram, Chintalapudi, West Godavari Dist.
3. Viswanadharao Srinivasa Rao, S/o Gopayya, age 24 years, R/o
Lakshminarasimhapuram, Chintalapudi, West Godavari Dist.
...Appellants/Defendants 1 to 3
AND
1. Viswanadharao Lakshmi Narasamma, W/o late Gopayya, aged 60
years, R/o Lakshminarasimhapuram, Chintapudi, West Godavari Dist.
2. Chadara Ammaji, W/o Chakrapani, aged 30 years, Peruru (V), Vajedu
(M), Kothagudem, Khammam Dist.
(Respondent No.1 and 2 are dismissed for default vide Court Order
dated 09-02-2011, given effect by Admin DR Court on 27-04-2011 for
Respondent 1 and 2 Dismissed for default)
3. Yerrapothu Usha Rani, W/o Nagamalleswara Rao, age 31 years, R/o
Naidupet, Krishnalanka, Krishna Dist.
4. Battula Murali Krishna, S/o Ramamohana Rao, Kistaram, Sattupalli,
V
( Khammam Dist.
5. Battula Kishore, S/o Ramamohana Rao, aged 20 years, Kistaram
Sattupalli, Khammam Dist.
6. Battula Aruna Kumari, D/o Ramamohana Rao, Aged 19 years.
Kistaram, Sattupalli, Khammam Dist - Died per LRs 7 to 9
7. Bathula Vijaya Kumari, W/o. Late Bathula Murali krishna. Aged about 42
years. Housewife, H.No.3-44, Kistaram Village, Sattupalli, Mandalam,
Khammam District.
8. B Rammohan Rao, S/o. Late Bathula Muralikrishna, Aged about 21
years, H.No. 3-44, Kistaram Village, Sattupalli, Mandalam, Khammam
District.
9. B Chandra Prakash, S/o. late Bathula Muralikrishna, Student, Aged 19
years, H.No. 3-44, Kistaram Village, Sattupalli, Mandalam, Khammam
distrct.
Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 are brought on record as LRs of deceased
respondent No.6 vide court order dated 12.08.2024 in A.S.M.P.No.
1940 of 2017 in A.S.No. 224 of 2002.
...Respondents
Appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C, against the decree and judgment in
O.S.No.20/1994 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Eluru dated
24-1-2001.
This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of
appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and material papers in
the Suit and upon hearing arguments of Sri Prudvi Raju Mudunuri, Advocate
for the Appellants and Sri CH B R P Sekhar, Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 6 to 9.
This Court doth Order and decree as follows:
1. That the appeal suit be and hereby is dismissed;
2. That the judgment and decree, dated 24-01-2001, in O.S.No.20 of 1994
passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru be and is hereby
confirmed;
3. That each party do bear their own costs in the appeal.
Sd/- V DIWAKAR
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The AdditionaJ Civil Judge(Senior Division), Eluru, West Godavari
District
2. Two CD Copies , ,
Stu
vna
HIGH COURT
DATED:23/10/2025
DECREE
AS NO. 224 OF 2002
gf 0 I NOV 2025
C>
«o
jurrentSectiajix'^'^
O!
DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT
t ■
APHC010186632002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
THURSDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
APPEAL SUIT NO: 224 OF 2002
Appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C, against the decree and judgment in
O.S.No.20/1994 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Eluru dated
24-1-2001.
Between:
1. Viswanadharao Suryaprakasa Rao, S/o Gopayya, aged 45 years, R/o
Lakshminarasimhapuram, Chintalapudi, West Godavari Dist.
2, Viswanadharao Venkateswara Rao, S/o Gopayya, afe 28 years, R/o
Lakshminarasimhapuram, Chintalapudi, West Godavari Dist.
3. Viswanadharao Srinivasa Rao, S/o Gopayya, age 24 years, R/o
Lakshminarasimhapuram, Chintalapudi, West Godavari Dist.
...Appellants/Defendants 1 to 3
AND
1. Viswanadharao Lakshmi Narasamma, W/o late Gopayya, aged 60
years, R/o Lakshminarasimhapuram, Chintapudi, West Godavari Dist.
2. Chadara Ammaji, W/o Chakrapani, aged 30 years, Peruru (V), Vajedu
(M), Kothagudem, Khammam Dist.
(Respondent No.1 and 2 are dismissed for default vide Court Order
dated 09-02-2011, given effect by Admin DR Court on 27-04-2011 for
Respondent 1 and 2 Dismissed for default)
^ 3. Yerrapothu Usha Rani, W/o Nagamalleswara Rao, age 31 years, R/o
Naidupet, Krishnalanka, Krishna Dist.
4. Battula Murali Krishna, S/o Ramamohana Rao, Kistaram, Sattupalli,
Khammam Dist.
5. Battula Kishore, S/o Ramamohana Rao, aged 20 years, Kistaram,
Sattupalli, Khammam Dist.
6. Battula Aruna Kumari, D/o Ramamohana Rao, Aged 19 years,
Kistaram, Sattupalli, Khammam Dist - Died per LRs 7 to 9
7. Bathula Vijaya Kumari, W/o. Late Bathula Murali Krishna, Aged about 42
years , Housewife, H.No.3-44, Kistaram Village, Sattupalli, Mandalam,
Khammam District.
8. B Rammohan Rao, S/o. Late Bathula Muralikrishna, Aged about 21
years, H.No. 3-44, Kistaram Village, Sattupalli, Mandalam,
Khammam
District.
9. B Chandra Prakash, S/o. late Bathula Muralikrishna, Student, Aged 19
Khammam
years H.No. 3-44, Kistaram Village, Sattupalli, Mandalam,
distrct.
Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 are brought on record as LRs of deceased
respondent No.6 vide court order dated 12.08.2024 in A.S.M.P.No.
1940 of 2017 in A.S.No. 224 of 2002.
...Respondents
lA NO: 1 OF 2004fASMP 12675 OF 2004
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
stay all further proceedings including passing of final decree pursuant of the
preliminary decree dated 24-1-2001 in OS No. 20 of 1994 on the file of the
Addl. Senior Civil Judge Eluru pending disposal of Appeal
Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Prudvi Raju Mudunuri
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 : Sri CH B R P Sekhar
/ ■
/ The Court made the following order:
VGKR, J.
as_224_2002 honourable SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Appeal Suit No.224 of 2002 Judgment:
and decree dated The appeal suit is filed against the judgment the learned Additional Senior 24-01-2001 in O.S.No.20 of 1994 passed by filed' by the plaintiff Civil Judqe Eluru. West Godavari District. The suit was ^ for partition of the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds into seven to the plaintiff, mesne profits and for equal shares and to allot two such shares costs of the suit.
2. The case of the plaintiff as narrated in the plaint, in brief, is as follows;
Viswanadharao Gopayya was plaintiff's It is pleaded that the deceased deceased Venkata Lakshmana Rao are husband. Defendants 1 to 3 and the sons and the A**" defendant and the deceased Venkata Satyavathi, who is the and Gopayya. Out mother of defendants 5 to 8, are the daughters of plaintiff ,n or abou of them. Venkata Lakshmana Rao died unmarried and intestate behind 1974 and Venkata Satyavathi died intestate in the year 1976 ieaving The plaintiff was given cash of the defendants 5 to 8 as her legal heirs and silver Rs.50,000/- besides gold jewellery weighing 25 sovereigns worth Rs.25,000/- while at the weighing 100 tulas in addition to sare samansentrusted w; all such properties to time of her marriage with Gopayya and she i After and plaint schedule properties.
Gopayya for improving his properties accident in the year 1981, the 1"^ defendant took Gopayya died intestate in an management of the plaint schedule properties and started to enjoy the income for himself, due to which the realized from the plaint schedule properties and issued legal notice dated plaintiff demanded for partition of the same , 2, to r8 15-9-1993 to the defendants T to 3 and she impleaded thethedefendants above said relief parties as they have not cooperated with her in getting suit for partition of the plaint as and that the plaintiff was constrained to file the VGKR, J.
as_224_2002 schedule properties into seven equal shares by metes and bounds, allotting two such shares to her and for other reliefs.
3. Brief averments in the written statement fiied by the defendant are as follows:
It is contended that the 1*' defendant's father Gopayya got Ac.10-00 oniy in the partition that took piace among him and his brothers and the remaining properties were acquired by Gopayya with his contribution, He, his brothers and Gopayya partitioned the joint family properties in 1972 under a registered partition deed and'since then, respective shares have been ini possession and enjoyment of their respective shares and the properties fell to the share of Gopayya have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and 3^" defendant, and he never managed such property. The plaint schedule properties are incorrect and item Nos.1 and 4 of plaint-B schedule are his self- acquired properties and plaint-F schedule properties were purchased by him with his own money and the joint family has nothing to do with it and plaint-E schedule properties have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. It is further contended that he is always ready and willing to cooperate with the plaintiff in partitioning the properties of Gopayya and he got issued a reply notice dated 10-11-1993. The plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3 are residing in item No.5 of plaint-B schedule and the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
The defendants 2 to 8 remained ex parte in the early stage of the proceedings in this case.
4. Based upon the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial;
(1) Whether plaint schedule is correct ?
(2) Whether the partition between late Gopayya and his sons is true and correct and binding plaintiff ? If so, what the properties fell to the share of late Gopayya ?
VGKR, J.
as 224 2002 (3) To what share plaintiff is entitled and in which of the plaint schedule, plaintiff has got share ?
(4) Whether plaintiff is entitled to any mesne profits ? If so, to what amount ? and (5) To what relief ?
5. When the matter became part heard before the trial Court, the defendants 5 to 8 got their ex parte order set aside. The 6^^ defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 5, 7 and 8 by filing a memo. contending that he and the defendants 5. 7 and 8 are the legal heirs of their mother Venkata Satyavathi and she was given Ac.3-58 cents in R.S.No.17/2 of Lakshmi Narasimhapuram Village of Chintalapudi Mandal towards pasupu-kumkuma by her parents, Gopayya and his sons took a contention in the-relevant proceedings initiated before the A.P. Land Reforms Tribunal, Eluru that the above said landed property was given to Venkata Satyavathi towards pasupu-kumkuma and when their contention was on the file of the negatived, they preferred an appeal in L.R.A.No.243/1990 Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Eluru! which was allowed by it by virtue of its judgment dated 10-10-1991 upholding the giving of such property to and Venkata Satyavathi towards pasupu-kumkuma and the plaintiff defendants 1 to 3 are not entitled to claim the above said property. When the defendants 1 to 3 are squatting upon the said property, which is item No. 12 of plaint-A schedule, he and the defendants 5, 7 and 8 as the heirs of Venkata Satyavathi, filed the suit in O.S.No.156 of 1996 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court, Eluru, for declaration of their title over the same and for In view of the consequential relief of possession along with other reliefs, above circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek partition of item No. 12 of plaint-A schedule and that he and the defendants 5, 7 and 8, being the legal heirs of deceased Venkata Satyavathi, are entitled to have a share in other joint family properties of plaint-A to F schedules
6. The trial Court has also framed the following additional issue I 4 VGKR, J.
\ as_224 2002 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to have possession of plaint AA-1 schedule properties exclusively for herself as prayed for ?
7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-6 were marked.
8. After completion of the trial, on appreciation of the entire evidence on record and hearing the arguments of both sides, the learned trial Judge awarded preliminary decree of partition in part by granting 1/6^'^ share in item Nos.1 to 11 and 13 of plaint-A sfchedule properties and item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties and also awarded future profits in respect of the plaintiffs 1/6'^ share in the aforesaid properties. The trial Court further ordered defendants 1 to 3 to deliver possession of plaint AA-1 schedule properties to the plaintiff. The relief of partition in respect of the other properties as sought by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court.
9. Aggrieved against the said finding, the defendants 1 to 3 have filed the present first appeal. The plaintiff has not filed any appeal or cross objections.
10. During the pendency of appeal suit before the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, the appeal against the 1^* respondent/ t plaintiff and the 2'^'^ respondent/4*^ defendant was dismissed for default vide Court order dated 09-02-2011. Respondents 7 to 9 were brought on record as legal representatives of deceased 6'^ respondent/8'^ defendant vide Court order dated 12-8-2024 in A.S.M.P.No. 1940/2017.
11. Heard Sri Prudvi Raju Mudunuri, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 1 to 3 and Sri Ch.B.R.P. Sekhar, learned counsel for the respondents 6 to 9.
5VGKR, J.
as_224_2002
12. The learned counsel for appellants would contend that the trial 1 to 6 herein Court grossly erred in giving entitlement to the respondents daughter and heirs of the deceased daughter of respondent of equal shares with that of sons i.e. appellants 1 to 3 though they are not entitled to have any share in law. He would further contend that the tri^l Court grossly failed to observe that Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, bars respondent to file the suit for partition of dwelling house a female Hindu i.e. 1 contained in the plaint-B schedule properties. He would further contend that the trial Court erred in awarding 1/6 Share each to the defendants 4, 5 and 6/ daughters and heirs of deceased daughter of 1" respondent as they are not iew of their marriage much entitled to claim any share in the properties in view prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (A.P. Amendment Act), that the trial Court 1986. The learned counsel for appellants would contend failed to observe that the partition suit insofar as dwelling house is concerned. the suit is not maintainable and he would further contend that the learned trial record, decreed the Judge without properly appreciating the evidence on be allowed by setting aside the partition suit in part and that the appeal may judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 6 to 9 would on record, the learned trial contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence and there is no need to Judge .rightly decreed the suit for partition in part interfere with the findings as arrived by the learned trial Judge.
14. Now, the points for determination are;
(1) Whether the suit for partition insofar as dwelling house is not maintainable ?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is, entitled to the relief of partition in item Nos.1 to 11 and 13 of plaint-A schedule properties and item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties ?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the future profits in item Nos.1 to 11 and 13 of plaint-A schedule properties and item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties ?
mIm 6 VGKR, J.
as 224 2002 (4) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge needs any interference ? and (5) To what extent ?
15. Point No.1: Whether the suit for partition insofar as dwelling house is not maintainable ?
The learned counsel for appellants would contend that the suit for partition insofar as dwelling house is not maintainable in view of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act and Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act bars a female heir to get the share in a suit for partition of the dwelling house in plaint-B schedule properties. The appeal is filed by the defendants 1 to 3. The defendants 2 and 3 are remained set ex parte and they have not challenged the claim of the plaintiff. The 1®* defendant was examined as D.W.1 before the trial Court. He specifically admitted in his evidence in cross- examination itself that item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties are their ancestral properties and item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 are the house properties in plaint-B schedule properties. D.W.1 further admitted in his evidence in cross-examination that he had no objection to have partition the item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties and also to render accounts with regard to the rentals collected by him.
16. Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, has been repealed.
After repeal of Section 23, a female heir got a right to seek partition. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, is held to be prospective in operation with retrospective effect. The law is well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma\ wherein a Full Bench of the Apex Court held as follows:
"56. The daughter is treated as a coparcener in the same manner as a son by birth with the same rights in coparcenary property and liabilities. However, the proviso of sub-section (t) contains a non obstante clause providing that nothing contained in the sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition ' (2020) 9 see 1 VGKR, J.
as 224_2002 or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of the property which had taken place before 20-12-2004."
The prospective statute operates from the date of its enactment conferring new rights and the retrospective .statute operates backward and takes away or empowers vested rights acquired under existing rights. The retrospective statute is the one that does not operate retrospectively. It operates in future. However, its operation is based upon the character or statute that arose earlier. Characteristic or event, which happened in the past, Under the is requisite which had been drawn from antecedent events, amended Section 6, since the right is given by birth i.e. an antecedent event and the provisions operate concerning claiming rights on and from the date of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is amended with effect from 05-9-2005.
17. In the case of Vineeta Sharma {supra), a Full Bench of the Apex Court further held as follows;
"129
(i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities,
(ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2006 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004.
(iii) Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2006.
(iv) The statutory fiction of partition created by proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the he was survived purpose of ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when, by a female heir, of Class I as specified in the Schedule to the Act pf 1956 or male relative of such female. The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has 8 VGKR, J.
as_224 2002 been passed the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal,
(v) In view of the rigor of provisions of Explanation to Section 6(5) of the Act of 1956, a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted'as the statutory recognised mode of partition effected by a deed of partition duly registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been affected by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightty."
Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, has been omitted so as to remove the disability of female heirs contained in the section. It sought to achieve larger public purpose. As stated supra, in the case on hand, the plaintiff is none other than the mother of defendants 1 to 3, the father of defendants 1 to 3 died intestate and the plaintiff/mothef is claiming share of her husband property, it is admitted case of both the parties that the plaintiff's husband i.e. Gopayya and his sons partitioned the joint family properties on 17-01-1972 under the original of Ex.A-1. It is the specific case of plaintiff that the house properties i.e. item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties are not mutated. The 1®* defendant/D.W.1 admitted in his evidence in cross-
examination itself that item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties are their ancestral properties and the said items are not included in the partition, which was, taken place among the father and his sons in the year 1972. For the aforesaid reasons, the suit for partition is maintainable. Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is not at all applicable to the present case.
18. Point No.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of partition in item Nos.1 to 11 and 13 of plaint-A schedule properties and item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties ?
-
VGKR, J.
as 224 2002 The undisputed facts are that the plaintiff and Viswanadharao Gopayya are wife and husband, respectively and defendants 1 to 3 and deceased Venkata Lakshmana Rao are the sons, .and the 4'*^ defendant and deceased Venkata Satyavathi are the daughters of' plaintiff and Gopayya It is undisputed by both sides that Venkata Lakshmana Rao died unmarried and intestate in or about 1974 and Venkata Satyavathi died intestate in the year 1976 leaving behind her the defendants 5 to 8 as her legal heirs. It is an admitted fact by both the parties that Gopayya and his sons partitioned the joint family properties on 17-01-1972 under the registered partition deed i.e. under the original of Ex.A-1. The learned trial Judge, on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, by giving cogent reasons, held in the judgment that item Nos.1 and 4 of plaint-B schedule properties are self-acquired properties of the 1^' defendant. The plaintiff did not challenge the said finding, no appeal or cross-objections are filed by the plaintiff, therefore, the said finding attained finality.
19. To prove the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 is the plaintiff. The plaintiff also relied on the evidence of P.W.2 and relied on Ex.A-1 registration extract of partition deed executed among the plaintiff's husband and sons in the year 1972 i.e. on The defendants 2 17-01-1972, the same is undisputed by the 1®* defendant. and 3 are also not disputed the same. Ex.A-1 clearly reveals that plaint-AAl schedule properties fell to the share of Venkata Lakshmana Rao in the said partition under Ex.A-'1. It is undisputed that Venkata Lakshmana Rao died intestate and unmarried and that the plaintiff, being Class-1 heir, plaintiff is entitled to the share of deceased unmarried son, by name Venkata held in Lakshmana Rao. The learned trial Judge, by giving cogent reasons, the judgment that the plaintiff is entitled for possession of plaint-AAl schedule properties. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the learned trial Judge.
10VGKR, J, as_224_2002
20. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A-1 clearly goes to show that plaint-A schedule properties fell to the share of Gopayya under a registered partition deed. The said Gopayya was none other than the plaintiff's husband. As stated supra, the defendants i to 3 and deceased Venkata Lakshmana Rao are the sons, and the 4*'' defendant and deceased Venkata Satyavathi are the daughters of plaintiff and Gopayya. The defendants 2 and 3 remained set ex parte. The 1®* defendant contended in the suit that the 1®' defendant alone contested the suit. The present appeal is filed by the defendants 1 to 3, and the remaining defendants in the suit proceedings have not filed any appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge.
21. The evidence on record goes to show that plaint-A schedule properties fell to the share of Gopayya i.e. plaintiff's husband under a registered partition deed way back in the year 1972. The 1®* defendant/D.W.1 admitted in his evidence in cross-examination that plaint-A schedule properties fell to the share of his father, and defendants 2 and 3 are remained set ex parte. As noticed supra, by giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Judge rightly held that since one of the sons of plaintiff and Gopayya, by name Venkata Lakshmana Rao died unmarried and intestate in or about 1974, the plaintiff/mother of the said Venkata Lakshmana Rao being Class-1 heir, is entitled to the share of Venkata Lakshmana Rao and she is entitled for possession of the said properties from the defendants 1 to 3.
22. For the aforesaid reasons, the plaintiff is entitled for partition in respect of item Nos.1 to 11 and 13 of plaint-A schedule properties and the plaintiff is also entitled to the possession of plaint-AAl schedule properties from the defendants 1 to 3.
23. It is the specific case, of the plaintiff that item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties are ancestral properties and those properties are 11 VGKR, J.
as 224 2002 not included in the registered partition deed that has taken place among I Gopayya and his sons in the year 1972. In order to prove the same, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and also erlied on the evidence of P.W.2. The 1®* defendant/D.W.1 admitted in his evidence in cross-examination itself that item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties are their ancestral properties and the said items are not included in the partition that took place in the year 1972. He further admitted that he had no objection to have partition of item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties and also to render accounts with regard to the rentals collected by him in respect of the said properties. By giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Judge rightly held in the judgment that the plaintiff is also entitled for partition of item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties and also 1/6^*^ share was allotted to the plaintiff in item Nos.1 to 11 and 13 of plaint-A schedule properties and item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered.
24. Point No.3:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the future profits in item Nos.1 to 11 and 13 of plaint-A schedule properties and item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties ?
It is the specific case of the plaintiff that she is entitled for future profits in respect of her share in the joint family properties, It is the specific contention of the 1®^ defendant that he is not in possession of joint family properties and the plaintiff is in possession of the same.
25. As seen from the material on record, the 1®' defendant himself admitted in his evidence that he has no objection to render accounts with regard to the rentals collected by him in respect of item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties. It is in the evidence of plaintiff/P.W.1 that the plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties and she is entitled to the share of her deceased 2'^'^ son Venkata Lakshmana Rao and also heir of her husband. She further deposed that her sons have been completely neglected 12 VGKR. J, as_224 2002 her and she is a sick person and she has not even provided to medical aid and she is having a share in the properties and she was neglected by her sons. The plaintiff also relied on Ex.A-2 legal notice said to have been issued on 15-9-1993. In Ex.A-2, it is reiterated that the 1 defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the family properties from the date of death of the plaintiffs husband. In Ex.A-2 legal notice itself, it was contended by the plaintiff that the 1®* defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the family properties. Exs.A-3 to A-5 goes to show that the defendants 1 to 3 received Ex.A-2 legal notice. In Ex.A-2 legal notice, it is asserted by the plaintiff that the 1 defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the family properties. To deny the contents in Ex.A-2 legal notice, no reply notice has been issued by the defendants I to 3. The 1®' defendant alone contested in the suit proceedings. The defendants 2 and 3,remained set ex parte. None of the defendants including the 1®' defendant gave reply notice to deny the contents in Ex.A-2 legal notice. As stated supra, the defendants 2 and 3 are remained set ex parte.
26. The defendants 1 to 3, who received Ex.A-2 notice before filing of the suit, did not even choose to send a reply notice denying the contents of legal notice and the 1®' defendant did not even deny the possession of the family properties. The defendants 1 to 3 have not explained the reasons for not responding to Ex.A-2 legal notice. This circumstance goes a long way in showing that the defendants 1 to 3 are admitting the contents of Ex.A-2 legal notice. As stated supra, the defendants 2 and 3 are remained set ex parte, but the 1®' defendant pleaded in the written statement itself that he issued a reply notice, dated 10-11-1993, to the legal notice under Ex.A-2 said to have been issued by the plaintiff. But, except taking the said formal plea in the written statement, the 1®* defendant did not even place any material either before the trial Court or before this Court to show that he issued a reply notice to deny the contents of Ex.A-2 legal notice.
13VGKR, J."
as 224 2002
27. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, she lost her husband in a road accident and she being a co-sharer having lost her husband unexpectedly in a road accident, therefore, it is very difficult for maintaining family properties, the 1®* defendant, who is elder son was available when the plaintiff is not in a position to manage the family properties, it is quite natural to entrust the management of properties to the 1®' defendant being an elder surviving son in the family. Furthermore, the 1®' defendqnt/D.W.1 admitted in his evidence in cross-examination itself that he has no objection to have partition the item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties and also to render accounts with regard to the rentals collected by him. For the aforesaid reasons, the plaintiff is entitled to future profits in respect of her 1/6*^ share in item Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 of plaint-B schedule properties. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered.
28. Point No.4: Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge needs any interference ?
After careful consideration, the trial Court had adequately appreciated the evidence on record and there is no reason for this Court to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the trial Court. I believe the findings arrived by the trial Court are correct and no justifiable reasons have been shown by the appellants/defendants 1 to 3 for arriving at different conclusions. I agree with the conclusion reached by the trial Court.
29. Point No.5: To what extent ?
In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree, dated 24-01-2001, in O.S.No.20 of 1994 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Each party do bear their own costs in the appeal.
Sd/- V DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To
1. The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District (with records if any) "N f
2. One CC to Sri. Prudvi Ra]u Mudunuri Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to Sri. CH B R P Sekhar Advocate [OPUC]
4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi
5. Two CD Copies Stu vna i.
..'v :
t r 'N HIGH COURT DATED:23/10/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE AS NO. 224 OF 2002 % O 01 NOV 2025 IS DISMISSING THE APPEAL SUIT