Telangana High Court
Vaiishala Brahmaiah And 4 Others R/O ... vs Koppuju Uma , Uma Maheswari And Another on 29 August, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
APPEAL SUIT No.697 of 2005
Between:
1. Valishala Brahmaiah S/o.Muthaiah,
Aged about 66 years, Occ: Business and Agriculture,
R/o.H.No.8-35, Bodrai Bazar, Kodad Village and Mandal,
Nalgonda District. (died per LR appellant No.6)
2. Valishala Govardhan Kumar @ Govardhan, S/o.Brahmaiah,
Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business and agriculture,
R/o.H.No.8-35, Bodrai Bazar, Kodad Village and Mandal,
Nalgonda District.
3. Valishala Rana Prathap S/o.Brahmaiah,
Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business and agriculture,
R/o.H.No.8-35, Bodrai Bazar, Kodad Village and Mandal,
Nalgonda District.
4. Valishala Satya Prathap S/o.Brahmaiah,
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business and agriculture,
R/o.H.No.8-35, Bodrai Bazar, Kodad Village and Mandal,
Nalgonda District.
5. Valishala Mohan Kumar S/o.Brahmaiah,
Aged about 32 years, R/o.H.No.8/24/B (Old 8/25)
Kallugadda Bazar, Kodad Village and Mandal.
6. Lakshmi Narsamma W/o.Late Valishala Brahmaiah,
Age: 80 years, Occ: House Wife,
R/o.H.No.8-35, Bodrai Bazar, Kodad Village and Mandal,
Nalgonda District.
(brought on record as LR of deceased 1st appellant
Viz., V.Brahmaiah as per C.O. dt. 15.09.2022, vide
I.A.No.03 of 2021) ... Appellants
And
AKS,J & ETD,J
AS_697_2005
2
1. Koppuju Uma @ Uma Maheswari W/o.Brahma Chary,
Aged about 35 years, Hindu, Occ: Business and agriculture,
R/o.H.No.4-54/4, Khammam X Roads, behind Petrol Bunk,
Kodad Down and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
2. Motamarri Uma Kumari W/o.M.Vijaya Bhaskar,
Plot No.102, Lakshmipuram Colony,
Tadigadapa, Vijayawada. ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 29.08.2025
Submitted for approval.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish
to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
AKS,J & ETD,J
AS_697_2005
3
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
+ APPEAL SUIT No.697 of 2005
% Dated 29.08.2025
Between:
# 1. Valishala Brahmaiah S/o.Muthaiah,
Aged about 66 years, Occ: Business and Agriculture,
R/o.H.No.8-35, Bodrai Bazar, Kodad Village and Mandal,
Nalgonda District. (died per LR appellant No.6)
2. Valishala Govardhan Kumar @ Govardhan, S/o.Brahmaiah,
Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business and agriculture,
R/o.H.No.8-35, Bodrai Bazar, Kodad Village and Mandal,
Nalgonda District.
3. Valishala Rana Prathap S/o.Brahmaiah,
Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business and agriculture,
R/o.H.No.8-35, Bodrai Bazar, Kodad Village and Mandal,
Nalgonda District.
4. Valishala Satya Prathap S/o.Brahmaiah,
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business and agriculture,
R/o.H.No.8-35, Bodrai Bazar, Kodad Village and Mandal,
Nalgonda District.
5. Valishala Mohan Kumar S/o.Brahmaiah,
Aged about 32 years, R/o.H.No.8/24/B (Old 8/25)
Kallugadda Bazar, Kodad Village and Mandal.
6. Lakshmi Narsamma W/o.Late Valishala Brahmaiah,
Age: 80 years, Occ: House Wife,
R/o.H.No.8-35, Bodrai Bazar, Kodad Village and Mandal,
Nalgonda District.
(brought on record as LR of deceased 1st appellant
Viz., V.Brahmaiah as per C.O. dt. 15.09.2022, vide
I.A.No.03 of 2021) ... Appellants
AKS,J & ETD,J
AS_697_2005
4
And
$ 1. Koppuju Uma @ Uma Maheswari W/o.Brahma Chary,
Aged about 35 years, Hindu, Occ: Business and agriculture,
R/o.H.No.4-54/4, Khammam X Roads, behind Petrol Bunk,
Kodad Down and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
2. Motamarri Uma Kumari W/o.M.Vijaya Bhaskar,
Plot No.102, Lakshmipuram Colony,
Tadigadapa, Vijayawada. ... Respondents
! Counsel for the Appellants: Sri K.S.Gopala Krishnan, learned
Senior Counsel representing
Sri T.G.Prasad Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri A.Radha Krishna
<Gist:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. (2018) 14 SCC 814
2. (2022) 15 SCC 475
3. AIR 2020 SCC 3717
4. (1981) 3 SCC 36
5. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 8
6. (2020) 4 SCC 313
7. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 802
8. (2011) 8 SCC 249
AKS,J & ETD,J
AS_697_2005
5
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
APPEAL SUIT No.697 OF 2005
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada) This is an appeal filed by the appellants - defendants 1 to 5, being aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree, dated 07.10.2005 passed in O.S.No.04 of 2004 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet (for short "the trial Court").
2. The parties are addressed herein as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.
3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that the defendant No.1 is her father, defendant Nos.2 to 5 are her brothers and defendant No.6 is her sister respectively. Originally, the father of the defendant No.1 i.e. Valishala Muthaiah was the Manager of Joint Hindu Family and that the Joint Hindu family was holding the lands, houses, cash and gold as described in the plaint schedule. After the demise of said Muthaiah, the suit schedule properties were inherited by the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff being the coparcener of the Joint Hindu Family, she is claiming her AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 6 share in the suit schedule properties. It is her further case that her marriage was performed with one Koppoju Brahma Chary on 02.11.1985 as per Hindu Customs and Rites and that she is blessed with three daughters out of the wedlock. It is further averred that the marriages of defendant Nos.2 to 6 are also performed and that the plaintiff and the defendants are enjoying the suit schedule property jointly and that recently defendant No.1 started mismanaging the suit schedule properties and as such, the plaintiff has demanded for partition and separate possession of her 1/7th share and that initially the defendants have accepted but are not coming forward to effect the same, thus, at the instance of plaintiff a panchayath was held with caste elders and village elders on 15.03.2001 and that the defendants have once again accepted for partition, but still not coming forward to materialize the same. Once again the plaintiff called for a panchayath with the caste elders on 01.04.2001 and in that meeting the defendants refused to partition on the pretext that the plaintiff is having three daughters and that if the properties are partitioned after the marriage of her three daughters, the entire property will go into the hands of third parties and due to said reason, they refused for partition. Hence, the suit.
AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 7
4. The defendants have filed written statement admitting the inter se relationship among the parties but they denied the jointness of the family. They admitted that Muthaiah was the Manager of the Joint Hindu Family and that the Joint Hindu Family was holding some landed property but now the joint family status has been severed and there is no jointness and the suit schedule properties are no more joint family properties. They further denied that the plaintiff and defendant No.6 to be the successors of V.Muthaiah and contended that plaintiff is no way concerned with the joint family and she cannot be treated as a coparcener. The defendants further contended that the plaintiff's marriage was performed on 02.11.1985 and that the plaintiff is not in joint possession of the suit schedule properties along with the defendants. They further denied the averments of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 started mismanaging the properties and that the defendants have never agreed to give 1/7th share to the plaintiff. They further denied the holding of panchayaths and that the defendants have agreed before the panchayath elders on 15.03.2001 to allot 1/7th share to the plaintiff and they also denied another panchayath alleged to be held on 01.04.2001. It is their contention that they have never agreed to the partition of properties and allotment of the 1/7th share to the AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 8 plaintiff. Their contention is that the plaintiff is not at all a coparcener and is not entitled to any share in the property. They further submitted that one Valishala Veeraiah is the grandfather of the 1st defendant and he said Veeraiah died about 70 years back, leaving behind his two sons by name Muthaiah and Raghavaiah. Among these two sons Raghavaiah died issueless and Muthaiah died leaving behind his three sons, two daughters and his wife as his legal heirs. The defendant No.1 is one of the sons and the other two are Valishala Veera Chary and Valishala Anantha Ramaiah and the daughters are Ananthamma and Kotamma, Eshwaramma was his wife. The said Muthaiah, the father of defendant No.1 was having land at Kodad village, admeasuring Ac.17-10 guntas and later on after the death of their father Muthaiah, the defendant No.1, Anantha Ramaiah and Veera Chary have improved the property with their joint efforts and also built a rice mill. Subsequently, they filed a suit for partition before the Subordinate Court, Nalgonda vide O.S.No.17 of 1965 and the said suit was compromised on the advice of friends and a compromise decree was passed on 23.04.1965. Out of the said compromise decree, the defendant No.1 was given an extent of Ac.08-05 guntas situated at western portion of the land in survey No.1060 which is called as "Majid AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 9 Chenu" and on western portion another Ac.04-00 guntas in survey No.1047 called as "Gurvaiah Chenu" and an extent of Ac.01-00 gts., situated on the northern side in survey Nos.334 and 335 were also given to defendant No.1 which is called as "Mattadi Polam". Further, in the house property 1/3rd share in the central portion and "Doddi" in the northern side of the said portion was given to him. It was further agreed upon that the defendant No.1 and his two brothers agreed to keep Gouri Shankar Rice Mill and the land attached to that as a joint family property to run the rice mill jointly and if they do not agree upon the arrangement, then they would lease it out for one or more years by public auction and that the lease amount shall be distributed among them equally. It is further submitted by the defendants that the land in survey No.371 to an extent of Ac.01-16 gts., situated at Kodad Town known as Tadla Bavi Polam was given to their mother with limited rights, till her death without any power of selling and on her death, the property should be given to the sisters of these defendants with absolute rights i.e. Ananthamma and Kotamma. It was further agreed that Ac.03-00 gts., of land in the northern portion in survey No.1043 situated at Kodad known as Mangalivari Chenu was given to Ananthamma and Kotamma with absolute rights.
AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 10
5. The defendants have further submitted that subsequently Anantha Ramaiah and defendant No.1 joined together and cultivated the land jointly and acquired some land on their joint efforts, an extent of Ac.02-30 guntas was acquired by defendant No.1 and Anantha Ramaiah acquired an extent of Ac.02-10 guntas in survey No.1064 and an extent of Ac.04-20 guntas in survey No.1047 out of which Ac.0-20 guntas was lost in laying Canals i.e. each of them lost Ac.0-10 guntas. Thereafter, the properties that were held by defendant No.1 i.e. Ac.08-05 guntas in survey No.1060, Ac.04-00 guntas in survey No.1047, Ac.02-30 guntas in survey No.1064, Ac.04-10 guntas in survey No.1047 and 2000 Sq.yards of open land in survey No.1064, these properties became the properties of joint family of defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 to 5. About five to six years prior to 03.06.1983, a family agreement was made between defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 to 5, the plaintiff and defendant No.6 and it was reduced into writing on 03.06.1983 and it came into force from 01.04.1983 with a view to avoid future litigations and also to keep the family relations in good tone. According to the family arrangement, a list of parties and properties was prepared and as per the said arrangement, the plaintiff and defendant No.6 were aged 16 years and their interest AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 11 was well protected by defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 to 4 also agreed to perform the marriage and upkeep of the plaintiff and defendant No.6. They have also mentioned the list of properties that fell to the shares of the defendants 1 to 5. That as per the said list of properties, each member of the family shall enjoy the property exclusively with absolute rights and their possession of the property as agreed and that the revenue entries were made and the patta passbooks were also given to defendants 1 to 5 and that they have been enjoying them without any interference. They further submitted that as per the arrangement, the marriages of plaintiff and defendant No.6 were performed with the amount contributed by each of the member as per the terms set out in the family arrangement and thus, defendant Nos.1 to 5 also sold certain properties through registered documents and that they have also given a list of properties that were sold away by defendant Nos.1 to
5.
6. It is further submitted by the defendants that they have given house sites to plaintiff and defendant No.6 through gift settlement deed vide document Nos.746 and 747 of 1991 dated 11.04.1995 respectively measuring 200 sq.yards each. They further submitted that the plaintiff was given a dowry of Rs.35,000/- and Rs.75,000/-
AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 12 was spent for marriage expenses and a cash of Rs.50,000/- was also given to the plaintiff and her husband wanted to run a shop at Kodad and also that they have given 15 tulas of gold at the time of marriage. Defendant No.6 was also given Rs.80,000/- towards dowry, Rs.1,00,000/- was spent for marriage expenses and 15 tulas of gold was given. They further submitted that the suit schedule properties are falsely shown and that they are not in existence and they cannot be partitioned among these parties as they have already got their respective shares as per the family arrangement and that they are not available for partition. They further contended that the rice mill was kept as joint property among three members as per the terms set out in O.S.No.17 of 1965. Veerachary died 20 years ago but Anantha Ramaiah is alive and that the suit is bad for non-joinder of said parties i.e. legal heirs of Veera Chary and Anantha Ramaiah. That the land in survey No.1057 and also the rice mill were settled under the terms of compromise in O.S.No.17 of 1965. They further submitted that 120 Sq.yards covered in survey No.523 situated at item No.5 of A-schedule is held by the defendant No.1 as he purchased with his income and that it belongs exclusively to defendant No.1 alone. It is further submitted that H.No.8-24B shown in B-Schedule belongs to defendant No.2 and AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 13 that he constructed the house having purchased the land and he sold it to defendant No.4 and thus, it became the exclusive property of defendant No.4. It is their contention that the properties mentioned in the suit schedule are not existing and that they failed to state definite shares of defendants 1 to 5 as the said properties are partitioned among them and that the daughters i.e. plaintiff and defendant No.6 have no right in the same.
7. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:
"1. Whether the suit schedule properties are joint family properties?
2. Whether the plaintiff and defendant No.6 are successors of late Valishala Muthaiah?
3. Whether the plaintiff is coparcener of joint family?
4. Whether defendant Nos.1 to 5 have agreed to give 1/7th share to the plaintiff as per the panchayat held among the village elders on 15.03.2001?
5. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share in the suit schedule properties?
6. Whether the court fee paid is correct?
7. To what relief?"
8. At the time of trial, the plaintiff got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A11, while the defendants got examined DWs 1 to 6 and Exs.B1 to B54 were marked.
AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 14
9. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has passed a preliminary decree allotting 1/7th share to the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties. Aggrieved by the said judgment and preliminary decree, the present appeal is preferred by the defendants 1 to 5.
10. Heard the submission of Sri K.S.Gopala Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri T.G.Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri A.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
11. The learned appellants counsel has submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in disbelieving the separation that was effected on 03.06.1983 under a compromise decree and thus, arrived at an erroneous finding. He further submitted that the trial Court failed to take note of Ex.B1 dated 09.06.1983 and the family arrangement which was made in terms of the earlier partition. The trial Court failed to appreciate the unregistered family arrangement deed on the ground that the same was not registered which is untenable for the reason that it only reflects the prior partition. He further argued that since it is only a family arrangement reflecting AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 15 the prior partition, it does not require any registration and that the trial Court failed to appreciate the said fact. He further argued that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective and that there is no joint family status prevalent as on date and that when there is no joint family, the question of partitioning the suit schedule properties does not arise and he further submitted that all the defendants 1 to 5 have partitioned the suit schedule properties long ago and that they have also sold away certain properties and have acquired several other properties, therefore, the properties mentioned in the suit schedule are not available for partition and hence, the plaintiff cannot succeed to a share in the suit schedule properties.
12. The learned respondent No.1 counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the plaintiff being the daughter of defendant No.1 is entitled to a share in the property along with the sons of defendant No.1 i.e. defendants 2 to 5. He further contended that the trial Court has passed the decree based on the legal principle and the amendment made to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act and that by virtue of the said amendment every female member of a joint family is a coparcener and thus, is entitled to a share in the joint family property and that the plaintiff is entitled to her share i.e. 1/7th share AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 16 in the suit schedule properties. He therefore, submitted that the trial Court has rightly passed the decree and hence, prayed to uphold the same by dismissing the appeal.
13. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has adopted the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.1.
14. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for consideration:
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition of the suit schedule properties, if so to what share?
2) Whether the judgment and preliminary decree of the trial Court is sustainable in law and under the facts?
3) To what relief? 15. POINT NO.1: a) The plaintiff is claiming 1/7th share in the suit schedule
properties contending that it is a joint family property. Defendant No.1 is the father of the plaintiff, defendant Nos.2 to 5 are brothers and defendant No.6 is her sister.
b) It is elicited from PW1 that even prior to the filing of the suit, the defendant No.1 has alienated three or four house sites but she does not have the details, but stated that all the plaint schedule AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 17 properties are joint family properties. It is elicited from her that their grandfather Muthaiah had Ac.17-10 guntas in survey No.1060 and that after his death his sons developed his properties with joint efforts and that a rice mill was constructed with joint efforts. She also admitted the filing of O.S.No.73 of 1965 by her paternal uncle and that it ended in a compromise. She has also admitted the division of properties as per the compromise decree among three brothers including defendant No.1. It is elicited from her that their father i.e. defendant No.1 herein was allotted Ac.08-05 guntas in survey No.1060, Ac.08-10 guntas in survey No.1047, Ac.10-15 guntas in survey No.1064 and 2000 Sq.yards of open land in survey No.1064. She further admitted that the rice mill was agreed to be run jointly. She further admitted that Ac.01-16 guntas was given to her grandmother in survey No.371 with limited rights and that it was agreed upon to give away the share of their grandmother to her paternal aunts after the demise of their grandmother and that Ac.03-00 guntas of land was allotted to her paternal aunts covered under survey No.1043 at Kodad and that after partition every individual enjoyed their respective shares independently and that subsequently, Anantha Ramaiah one of his paternal uncle joined along with defendant No.1 herein together and purchased some AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 18 property i.e. Ac.02-30 guntas in survey No.1047, Ac.02-10 guntas in survey No.1064 and that defendant No.1 has acquired some land jointly along with Anantha Ramaiah and later they partitioned the joint family property. But she denied the suggestion that the above extents which fell to the share of defendant No.1 were settled among defendants 1 to 5 and she stated that they have not executed any settlement deed, when she was 16 years old. She admitted the sale transactions mentioned in the written statement.
She also admitted that she along with her sister were given house plots of 200 Sq.yards each and she denied the other amounts and gold stated to have been given to her in the marriage. She denied the entire family settlement alleged to have been entered between defendants 1 to 5 including the arrangement of marital expenses of herself and defendant No.6.
c) PW2/Pouroji Ram Murthy was examined by the plaintiff in support of her case. He stated that he knows both the parties in the suit and the suit schedule properties. In his evidence it is elicited that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of defendants and the plaintiff and that there is no partition of the suit schedule properties between the plaintiff and the defendants till date. It is elicited during his cross examination that his wife is AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 19 relative of the plaintiff's husband and is a caste elder and it is elicited from him that he does not know the details of the properties owned by defendant No.1. He has stated that in the partition between defendant No.1 and his two brothers an extent of 20 to 30 acres fell to the share of defendant No.1 and that defendant No.1 has given Ac.05-00 guntas each to his sisters and that defendant No.1 owns a rice mill jointly along with his brothers. He denied that there was a family arrangement among defendant Nos.1 to 5 and that they have agreed to contribute Rs.30,000/- each to perform the marriage of plaintiff and defendant No.6. He further denied that defendants 1 to 5 are enjoying their respective shares but has admitted that defendants 1 to 5 have sold away some properties which fell to their respective shares and the purchasers have also constructed houses and that the plaintiff has never objected to alienate some of the suit schedule properties by the defendants. He further admitted that the plaintiff's husband sustained loss in his business and they moved to Kodad and that the husband of plaintiff sold away 180 sq.yards of house site which was given to the plaintiff.
d) Before discussing the evidence of defendants it is pertinent to mention that certain exhibits numbers are wrongly typed in the AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 20 depositions. All the documents are a part of record and the appendix clearly shows the description of document and the correct exhibit number.
e) It is elicited from the cross examination of DW1/Valishala Brahmaiah that Ex.B1/List of properties fell to the share of defendant Nos.1 to 5, is not a registered document and that the signatures of plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 and 6 were not obtained in Ex.B1 and it is elicited from the witness that the plaintiff, defendants 5 and 6 were minors at the time of Ex.B1 and that no sketch map is annexed to Ex.B1. DW1 could not give the descriptive particulars of the shares that fell to defendants 1 to 5 as per Ex.B1. He denied the suggestion that the partition among himself and his two brothers was effected in the year 1987. He further denied that Ex.B1 was brought into existence after the filing of the present suit. It is elicited from him that plaintiff demanded for partition and separate possession of 1/7th share. Though he stated that he has four power of attorneys of defendants 2 to 5 individually, he has not filed them in the Court. It is elicited from him that he has executed a sale deed/Ex.B25, under power of attorney from his brother Valishala Anantha Ramaiah and the sons of his deceased brother (veerachary) i.e. Valishala Chandrasekhar, Nagarjuna AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 21 Pandu Ranga Chary. He denied the suggestion that since Ex.B25 pertains to 1987, as such the family arrangement entered in the year 1983 under Ex.B1 is false and bogus. He feigned ignorance with regard to the execution of sale deeds bearing document No.342 of 1990 to one Lingampally Bhaskar Rao by him under a power of attorney from Valishala Anantha Ramaiah, Valishala Chandrashekar vide power of attorney document No.8 of 1987 under Ex.B29 (wrongly typed in the deposition as Ex.B28). He admitted that he sold to an extent of 65 Sq.yards through GPA of Anantha Ramaiah and Chandrashekar vide document No.8 of 1987 to one Saidamma vide document No.1708 of 1987 marked as Ex.B49. He denied the suggestion that in view of the sale made under Exs.B28 and B50, the family arrangement made in 1983 is false. He denied the suggestion that till date, Gowri Shankar Rice and Flour Mill is kept jointly between himself and his two brothers and that there is no question of family arrangement made in the year 1983 as per Ex.B1 and he further denied that the plaintiff is a coparcener and he is entitled to a share in the property.
f) It is elicited from DW2/Valishala Ranaprathap/defendant No.3 herein that they have not prepared any rough sketch map regarding the properties possessed by each family member under Ex.B1. It is AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 22 elicited through him with regard to the properties that are allotted to his brother defendant No.5, but he stated that he remembers approximately but not the exact extents. All the other admissions and denials are similar to that elicited from DW1 with regard to the Ex.B25, B29 and B49.
g) DW3/Chinthalapati Sambaiah, one of the acquaintances of the family is examined in support of defendants case. In his cross examination he could not say the details of properties possessed by the defendants. He is one of the attestor in Ex.B1. It is elicited from him that he does not know as to what is the extent of property given to the plaintiff and that in his presence no property was allotted to the plaintiff. It is further elicited from him that defendant No.1 has signed on the said document on her behalf as the plaintiff was minor. He stated that he attested Ex.B1 on which defendant No.1 has affixed his signature. He denied the suggestion that Ex.B1 was brought into existence after filing of the present suit.
h) DW4/D.Suryanarayana is one of the purchasers of the land sold by defendants. He stated that he purchased the land to an extent of 241 Sq.yards from defendant No.1 through a registered document No.2367 of 1984 in survey No.1047. It is elicited in his AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 23 cross examination that the land is barren and that it is converted into house plots and that he has not gone through the revenue records at the time of his purchase from defendant No.1. He admitted that the property which he purchased from defendant No.1 is a joint family property of Brahmaiah and his sons, but he does not know who are all the joint family members.
i) DW5/Bhukya Kishan is also one of the purchasers. It is elicited form him that he purchased 80 Sq.yards from defendant No.1 through a registered document No.832 of 1990 in survey No.1064 and that the possession was delivered to him after the purchase. It is elicited in his cross examination that he does not know the attestors of Ex.B28 (wrongly typed as Ex.B31 in the deposition), the sale deed under which he purchased the land from defendant No.1. He does not know the survey number in which the said land is situated and he does not know who was in possession of the land at the time of his purchase from defendant No.1 and he does not know the contents of his affidavit and the details of the disputed property.
j) DW6/Ch.Atchaiah is another purchaser stated to have purchased 263 Sq.yards in survey No.1062/87 and that he has built AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 24 a house in the said plot. In his cross examination it is elicited that he does not know the survey number and that he does not know the details of the disputed properties and as to who are in possession and enjoyment of the said properties.
k) Thus the evidence of DWs 4 to 6 is of no avail to the case of defendants but for the fact that they purchased land from defendant No.1. A perusal of their respective sale deeds i.e. Ex.B19, B28 and B21 reveal that they were executed by the defendant No.1 on his own behalf and through GPA from defendant Nos.2 to 5 and it is mentioned in the sale deeds that the land is in the name of defendant No.1 but is in the joint possession of defendant Nos.1 to
5.
l) The contention of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and that she is entitled to 1/7th share in the same. However, the defense put forth by the defendants is that the properties are already partitioned among the defendants 1 to 5 in 1983 under Ex.B1 i.e. the family arrangement deed.
m) A perusal of Ex.B1 reveals that there is a list of properties falling to each person i.e. defendants 1 to 5 and also daughters but AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 25 no properties are allotted to daughters in the said family arrangement. Further, it is elicited from the cross examination of DW1 that the signatures of plaintiff, defendant Nos.5 and 6 were not obtained on the said family settlement deed saying that they were minors and as per the said arrangement they have made some apportionment of cash to be contributed towards the marriages of the daughters i.e. plaintiff and defendant No.6. DWs 4 to 6 are alleged to be the purchasers from defendant No.1. However, it is elicited from defendant No.1 that he sold away the properties under Exs.B25, B29 and B49 through the GPA executed by his brothers.
n) Ex.B1 is an unregistered document. The counsel for appellants relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh 1 and Korukonda Chalapathi Rao v. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar 2, contending that the family arrangement has to be looked into and that it is not a compulsorily registerable document and that it has to be relied upon even if it is not registered. In case if his contention is believed to be true that family arrangement was made, the sale deeds under Exs.B3 to B54 speak otherwise. A perusal of the said sale deeds except Exs.B25, Ex.B29 and B49 reveals that they were executed 1 (2018) 14 SCC 814 2 (2022) 15 SCC 475 AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 26 by defendant No.1 on his own behalf and through GPA from defendant Nos.2 to 5 to third parties. It is mentioned in the said sale deeds that the properties are in joint possession and that the patta exists in the name of defendant No.1. Now, if at all the partition had taken place, they could have sold their respective shares independently but here the execution of the sale deed was done by the father and all the sons in favour of third parties, which means to say that the properties still existed in jointness. Further, the Exs.B25, B29 and B49 reveal that they were executed by defendant No.1 on his own behalf and through GPA from his brother and sons of his deceased brother stating that the property is in their joint possession. It is further revealed that all the other sale deeds were executed by defendant No.1 on his own behalf and through GPA of his sons' defendant Nos.2 to 5 stating that the property still exists in the name of defendant No.1 and is in joint possession of defendant Nos.1 to 5. Therefore, the family arrangement itself could not be proved by the defendants before the trial Court.
o) It is also pertinent to refer to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in this regard:
"6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property.―(1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 27 of 2005), in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,―
(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right the same manner as the son;
(b) have the same rights in the coparcenery property as she would have had if she had been a son;
(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenery property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004.
(2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition. (3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the coparcenery property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place and,―
(a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son;
(b) the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as they would have got had they been alive at the time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre- deceased daughter; and
(c) the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or of a pre-
deceased daughter, as such child would have got had he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre- deceased child of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be.
Explanation.―For the purposes of this sub-section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.
(4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), no court shall recognise any right to proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great-grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law, of such son, grandson or great- grandson to discharge any such debt:
Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect―
(a) the right of any creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great- grandson, as the case may be; or
(b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such debt, and any such right or alienation shall be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as it would AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 28 have been enforceable as if the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005)had not been enacted.
Explanation.―For the purposes of clause (a), the expression "son", "grandson" or "great-grandson" shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005).
(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004 Explanation.―For the purposes of this section "partition" means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court.]"
p) It is a well settled principle laid down by the Apex court in Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma 3, wherein it was held that every daughter is a coparcener and has a right to share in the joint family properties and that the amendment to Section 6 of the Act, 1956 has retrospective effect.
q) In the present case, it is elicited from the evidence on record that there is no family arrangement as on the date of suit, though they tried to elicit the same. The arrangement reflected in Ex.B1 should be made in metes and bounds, it should be seen practically that it has been given effectively. But in the present case, it is not elicited that the arrangement made under Ex.B1 has been put into effect by division of properties by metes and bounds. Therefore, the defendants failed to prove their contention that the property is 3 AIR 2020 SCC 3717 AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 29 partitioned as per Ex.B1 among defendant Nos.1 to 6. Hence, it is held that the suit schedule properties are not partitioned.
r) There are certain registered sale deeds under Exs.B3 to B54 which portrays that the defendants have executed the registered sale deeds. However, in a partition suit the equities have to be worked out while dividing the properties by metes and bounds. It is further elicited from defendant No.4 to 6 that they purchased the joint family property from defendant No.1. Even on that ground the plaintiff succeeds in proving that the properties were not partitioned.
Hence, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties, since there are four brothers and two sisters along with the plaintiff herein.
s) The appellants counsel also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma's case. This Court has already discussed holding that the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary properties, equally to that of son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal, therefore, this appeal arises out of a preliminary decree and hence, the daughter i.e. plaintiff herein is entitled to her share to the extent of 1/7th.
AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 30
t) The learned counsel for the appellants further wanted to file the copies of the partition list from the public office of RDO and Municipality to show that they were produced before them for mutation and plan approval. The contention of the appellants counsel itself shows that they have filed for mutation but they have not placed any evidence on record to show that they were already mutated in their names. That means the mutation has not been effected so far. It is also discussed supra that defendants 1 to 5 have executed sale deeds in favour of third parties, which further throws light on the fact that the property was not partitioned. Thus, it is revealed that some of the properties were held in jointness by defendant No.1 and his brothers which were sold away under Ex.B25, B29 and B49.
u) Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that in I.A.No.01 of 2025 i.e. AS MP No.2407 of 2005 stay of passing final decree proceedings was alone granted. As such Commissioner was appointed for division of suit schedule properties and report was filed in I.A.No.162 of 2006 in O.S.No.4 of 2004 and that the subsequent events have to be dealt with. The appellant himself says that the commissioner was appointed for division of suit schedule properties by metes and bounds, the said AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 31 query can be raised in the final decree application. His contention is that when the plaint schedule is not correctly given with regard to the availability of properties, the preliminary decree does not hold good but the said contention can as well be raised during the final decree proceedings. Since, passing of final decree is stayed, these contentions can be raised by the parties before the trial Court and the trial Court shall consider the same while passing the final decree proceedings.
v) The learned appellants counsel has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in M.M.Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma 4, wherein it was held that subsequent event should have been noticed at the appellate stage because the appeal is nothing else but a continuation of the suit. He also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Leela v. Muruganantham 5, wherein it was held that mere registration of will won't make it valid unless the provisions under Section 63 of Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act are complied with. The learned counsel has relied upon the said decisions contending that the will in this case is a subsequent event. His contention is that defendant No.1 died during the pendency of the appeal by executing a registered will deed dated 4 (1981) 3 SCC 36 5 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 8 AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 32 30.07.2016 of his alleged 'A' schedule allotted to him under Ex.B1 dated 03.06.1983, in favour of his sons who are defendants 2 to 5 disregarding the 1/7th share allotted to him in preliminary decree. It is contended that since the will is a subsequent event that has to be considered in this appeal. The preliminary decree is dated 17.10.2005. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that to avoid complications 3rd appellant for himself and other appellants have filed counter not pressing their claims under the Will executed by late defendant No.1 in their favour. Hence, the subsequent event regarding shares of defendant No.1 under the Will is to be ignored and thus, the deceased 1st defendant's share is to be considered as intestate succession to all the parties including his wife who is arrayed as appellant No.6. In which case, the subsequent event of Will does not fall for consideration. w) It is pertinent to take note of a fact that during the pendency of appeal, the defendant No.1 died but his wife Laxminarsamma was brought on record as his LR. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/7th share in the suit schedule property.
x) The learned counsel for the appellants further relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Malluru Mallappa v. Karuvathappa 6, 6 (2020) 4 SCC 313 AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 33 wherein it was held that it is a settled position of law that an appeal is the continuation of proceedings of original Court, thus, the appellate jurisdiction involves a rehearing on law as well as on fact and is invoked by an aggrieved person. So the appellate Court is required to address itself to all the issues and decide the case by giving reasons. This Court has answered all the issues in detail and also the evidence on record was perused and a reasoned decision is given.
y) He further relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan v. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi 7, contending that non-joinder of necessary parties is fatal issue to maintainability of suit and that defendant No.1's father and his two brothers agreed to keep the rice mill and land attached to that in jointness and that Gowri Shankar Rice Mill is not yet partitioned among the brothers of his father and therefore, the said brothers and the legal heirs of the said brothers have to be brought on record who are necessary parties and hence, contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. He also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala 7 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 802 AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 34 Devi 8, wherein it was held that framing of issues is very important stage in the civil litigation and it is the bounden duty of the Court that due care, caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by the Judge while framing of issues. The contention of appellants counsel is that the issue with regard to the non-joinder of parties has to be framed by the trial Court and that the brothers and the sons of deceased brother of defendant No.1 are necessary parties and their non-joinder would defeat the suit.
z) It is pertinent to refer in this regard that defendant is making contradictory statements. The defendant's plea is that there was a prior partition and that all the properties were partitioned. DW1 has stated that there was prior partition and again he takes a plea that the rice mill is in jointness and that the sons of the brother of defendant No.1 are necessary parties.
aa) A perusal of cross examination of DW1 reveals that he denied the jointness of properties between himself and his brothers. Thus, the said parties as contended by him are not necessary parties. Hence, the non-joinder of the said parties is not fatal to the present case. The point No.1 is answered accordingly holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/7th share in the suit schedule property. 8 (2011) 8 SCC 249 AKS,J & ETD,J AS_697_2005 35
16. POINT NO.2:
In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point No.1, it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court do not need any interference and the same are held to be sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of the case.
17. POINT NO.3:
In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the judgment and preliminary decree, dated 07.10.2005 passed in O.S.No.04 of 2004 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet. No costs.
Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
___________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ______________________ TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J Date: 29.08.2025 ns