Telangana High Court
Renuguntla Raghavender vs Smt.Renuguntla Padma Alias Spandana on 21 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
APPEAL SUIT NO.465 OF 2023
DATED: 21st APRIL, 2026
Between:
Renuguntla Raghavender
.. Appellant-Defendant No.4
Vs.
1. Smt. Renuguntla Padma @ Spandana,
W/o.Late Madhava Rao, Aged: 44 years,
Occ: House hold, R/o.H.No.11-9-60/B,
Lakshminagar Colony, Ranga Reddy District and another.
.. Respondents-Plaintiffs
3. Reniguntla Balamani (died as per LRs D2 to D5), and 3 others.
.. Respondents-Defendant
Nos.1, 2, 3 & 5
This Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT:
1. This Memorandum of Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'CPC') assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in OS.No.438 of 2010, dated 06.10.2023.
2/23 BRMR,J
AS_465_2023
2. Appellant is the defendant No.4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. Respondent Nos.3 to 6 are defendant Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 in OS No.438 of 2010.
3. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 - defendant Nos.2 and 3 remained ex parte in the suit.
4.1. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs have filed suit under Section 26 r/w Order 7 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC against the appellant and respondent Nos.3 to 6 seeking partition and separate possession in respect of plaint schedule 'A' to 'L' properties (herein after referred to as suit schedule property). 4.2. The prayer in the suit is to pass a preliminary decree of 1/5th share to respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs and 1/5th share to rest of the defendants (respondent Nos.3 to 6 and appellant herein).
5. It is stated in the plaint that Late Renuguntla Chandrashekar during his life time has purchased plot bearing No.18, admeasuring 426 square yards in survey Nos.63, 67, 72 and 73 of Gaddenaram Village, Saroornagar Panchayat, presently known as Kamalanagar, Dilsukhnagar, Ranga Reddy District in the name of his wife (respondent No.3 - defendant No.1). Respondent No.1-plaintiff No.1 husband by name Madhava Rao is the son of R.Chandrashekar and that they constitute joint family. The plot 3/23 BRMR,J AS_465_2023 was given for development to a developer who constructed a complex and named as Balajinivas Residential Complex. Respondent No.2-plaintiff No.2 is the grand-son of R.Chandrashekhar. Madhava Rao died on 10.07.2007 leaving behind respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs as his legal heirs and they constitute joint family. As the respondent Nos.3 to 6- defendants and appellant-defendant No.4 neglected the respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs thereby she filed DVC before the XI M.M. Court, Cyberabad, at L.B. Nagar. All the parties are having share in the suit schedule property. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs have equal right along with respondent Nos.3 to 6 - defendants and appellant-defendant No.4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs demanded partition, mediations have taken but all went in vain and finally they got issued legal notice on 18.10.2009 for partition of the suit schedule property.
6. Respondent No.3-defendant No.1 has filed written statement on 21.12.2011 stating that plot admeasuring 426 square yards was purchased by her through a registered Sale Deed bearing document No.127 of 1981, dated 06.01.1981 with her savings and by disposing of gold ornaments. It is not the joint family property. A development agreement was entered between her with the developer on 24.02.2002. Her son by name Madhava Rao has 4/23 BRMR,J AS_465_2023 nothing to do with the said development agreement as the property is her exclusive property. She was arrested in connection with a criminal case and was released on bail later on. She has alienated land admeasuring 58 square yards by way of Registered Sale Deed dated 07.08.1989 vide document No.11390 and the land left over is 368 square yards which was given for development. Respondent No.3-Defendant No.1 is residing in one flat and the other properties are alienated and mortgaged by her for the purpose of marriages and to clear the debts and loans raised. The schedule boundary stated in the plaint are imaginary and no property exists, the suit is barred by law.
7. Appellant-defendant No.4 has adopted the written statement filed by his mother-respondent No.3-defendant No.1.
8. Respondent No.6-defendant No.5 has filed her separate written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff.
9. The learned trial Court has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are in joint and constructive possession over the suit properties?
2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
3. Whether the Court fee paid by the plaintiffs is correct?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition as prayed for?
5. To what relief?
5/23 BRMR,J
AS_465_2023
10.1. Respondent No.1-plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW.1 and also examined PW.2- T. Srinivas, got marked Exs.A1 to A13. Appellant-
defendant No.4 is examined as DW.1 and also examined DW.2- R.Sudershan, got marked Exs.B1 to B29.
10.2. Respondent No.6 - Defendant No.5 has not adduced any evidence, thereby her evidence was closed as per the proceeding sheet of the learned trial Court dated 16.12.2019.
11. During pendency of the suit in OS No.438 of 2010, respondent No.3-defendant No.1 died on 03.02.2016.
12. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs have amended the plaint vide IA No.627 of 2023, dated 21.06.2023 seeking partition of suit schedule property and allotment of 1/5th share to the respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs and 1/5th share to respondent Nos.4 to 6 and appellants - defendants.
13. After carrying out amendment to the plaint by respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs, appellant - defendant No.4 has filed his additional written statement on 16.08.2023 contending that respondent No.1 - plaintiff No.1 during the pendency of the suit has performed second marriage and she is blessed with a female child with her husband in the year 2015. Respondent No.3- Defendant No.1 during her life time has executed registered Gift 6/23 BRMR,J AS_465_2023 Settlement Deeds (11 in number) in respect of suit schedule property in his favour and that he is the absolute owner thereof.
14. The learned trial Court vide proceeding dated 18.08.2023 held that "No additional issues need be framed".
15. The learned trial Court has decreed the suit as prayed for holding that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs are entitled for partition which is impugned in the Appeal.
16. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-defendant No.4 submits that the learned trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit instead of passing the preliminary decree and failed to see that the suit is not maintainable for partition of the suit schedule properties since the same belongs to respondent No.3 - defendant No.1 and she gifted the property in favour of appellant - defendant No.4 during her life time under registered Gift Deeds. The learned trial Court failed to see that respondent No.3 - defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and she can dispose of the same in any manner as she likes, the same cannot be treated as joint family property. The learned trial Court erred in saying that the property was purchased from out of the earnings of the husband of respondent No.3-defendant No.1 and it has to be treated as joint family property. The learned trial Court 7/23 BRMR,J AS_465_2023 misunderstood the purport of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, erred in saying that respondent No.3 - defendant No.1 did not adduce any evidence, hence the suit property shall be treated as having been purchased by her husband from his earnings. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Bipani Paul Vs. Pratima Gosh and Others1 (2) Gangamma and Others Vs. G.Nagarathnamma and Others 2.
17. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs submits that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case in right perspective and rightly decreed the suit for partition. Appellant-Defendant No.4 has played fraud on the Court and also on respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs about Ex.B28 - Gift Settlement Deeds and the Gift Settlement Deeds executed by respondent No.3- defendant No.1 are without any right as the suit schedule properties are joint properties. Counsel further submits that respondent No.3 - defendant No.1 has not stated with regard to Ex.B28 - Gift Settlement Deeds and the learned trial Court has rightly held that Gift Deeds will not bind the parties and will not deprive either the respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs or the defendants. Counsel further submits that the Supreme Court in Tej Bhan (D) through LR. & Ors. Vs. Ram Kishan (D) through LRs 1 (2007) 6 SCC 100 2 (2009) 15 SCC 756 8/23 BRMR,J AS_465_2023 & Ors. 3 has referred Gangamma case2 and other decisions to larger bench for restating the law on the interplay between sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and the decision cited by appellant counsel is not applicable, prayed to dismiss the Appeal.
18. Learned counsels on record have filed their written submissions in support of their contentions.
19. Heard both sides, perused the material on record.
20. Now the points for consideration are:
(i) Whether the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs have proved that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties having purchased by Late R.Chandrashekar? If so, are they entitled for 1/5th share?
(ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this Court?
POINT NOs.1 & 2:
21. Burden is on the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs to prove their case.
3
2024 INSC 945
9/23 BRMR,J
AS_465_2023
22. In Bipani Paul1, the Supreme Court has laid down the following principles:
1. Burden of Proof: The most significant principle reaffirmed is that the onus of proving that a transaction is benami rests squarely on the person who alleges it. The Court emphasized that this burden never shifts and cannot be discharged through mere suspicion or conjectures; it requires legal evidence of a definite character.
2. The Test of Intention: The "essence" of a benami transaction is the intention of the parties involved. While the source of the purchase money is an important factor, it is not the sole determinative test. The Court must look at:
• Surrounding Circumstances: The context in which the purchase was made.
• Relationship: The nature of the bond between the parties (e.g., husband and wife).
• Motive: Why the property might have been purchased in another's name (e.g., providing security for a wife and daughters).
• Subsequent Conduct: How the parties dealt with the property after the purchase (e.g., who paid taxes or mutated the records).
3. Presumption of Ownership: The individual whose name is on the official property deed starts with a legal presumption of truth in their favour - that the apparent state of affairs (the registered owner) is the real state of affairs.
23. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs before instituting the suit, got issued Ex.A4-legal notice dated 18.10.2009 to respondent Nos.3 to 6 - defendant Nos.1 to 3, 5 and appellant-defendant No.4 10/23 BRMR,J AS_465_2023 stating that late Renuguntla Chandrashekar during his life time has purchased plot admeasuring 450 square yards situated at Kamalanagar, Dilsukhnagar, Ranga Reddy District in the name of respondent No.3-defendant No.1 for the purpose of joint family welfare and in the best interest of the entire family and called upon them to allot 1/5th share in "Balaji Nivas".
24. Ex.A10 is the certified copy of order dated 11.06.2010 in DVC No.13 of 2009 passed by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B. Nagar. In Para 2 of the order, it is the pleading of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs in DVC No.13 of 2009 that "the husband of respondent No.1 (respondent No.3-defendant No.1) namely late Chandrashekar has purchased a plot admeasuring 450 square yards during his life time in his name and later the respondent No.1 (respondent No.3-defendant No.1) forcibly got transferred the said property in her name".
25. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs stated in the plaint that late Chandrashekar has purchased the property in the name of his wife and in DVC it is stated that the property is purchased by late Chandrashekar in his name and later respondent No.3-defendant No.1 has forcibly got transferred the said property in her name.
11/23 BRMR,J
AS_465_2023
26. It is not in dispute that against the orders in DVC No.13 of 2009 under Ex.A10. Respondent No.3-defendant No.1 and appellant - defendant No.4 preferred revision before this Court vide Crl.RC.No.517 of 2012 which is pending.
27. Ex.A11 is the chief-examination affidavit of respondent No.3- defendant No.1 in DVC No.13 of 2009. Ex.A12 is the cross- examination of respondent No.3-defendant No.1 in DVC No.13 of 2009 dated 12.03.2010 wherein she stated that "I purchased the property (426 square yards - plot No.18) about 35 years ago, by the time of purchasing the said plot, her husband was alive". The further cross-examination goes to show that "it is true that my husband purchased the said property but the consideration was not paid by him".
28. Ex.A1 and Ex.B2 are the same documents i.e., C.C. of Sale Deed dated 06.01.1981 vide document No.127 of 1981 which stands in the name of respondent No.3-defendant No.1. For further reference, the same will be here and after referred to as Ex.A1.
29. Ex.A1-Sale Deed dated 06.01.1981 goes to show that respondent No.3 - defendant No.1 has purchased plot No.18 admeasuring 426 square yards at Gaddiannaram Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District from P.Suryakantham 12/23 BRMR,J AS_465_2023 W/o. P.Ramchandra Rao. The total sale consideration of the property is Rs.8,520/- and has paid an amount of Rs.1,000/- as advance and earnest money, balance sale consideration of Rs.7,520/- will be paid at the time of registration of Sale Deed before the Registering Authorities. At the backside of internal page 2, an endorsement is made with regard to the balance sale consideration which is important to adjudicate the lis which reads as under:
Rs.7,520/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty only) were paid in my presence by Sri R.Chandrashekar on behalf of his wife Renuguntla Balamani the claimant to the executant.
Payer Payee
R.Chandrashekar Poduri Suryakantham
30. Ex.B3 is the certified copy of Sale Deed dated 07.08.1989 vide document No.11390 of 1989 executed by respondent No.3-
defendant No.1 in favour of A.Rajesham S/o.Venkatramalu alienating 58.00 square yards of land from out of 426 square yards. It is stated in the Sale Deed that vendor (respondent No.3- defendant No.1) is the sole and absolute owner of house bearing No.18-78 on plot No.18 admeasuring 426 square yards. The Sale Deed further goes to show that the vendor is in need of money for 13/23 BRMR,J AS_465_2023 her urgent domestic expenses and therefore offered to sell free from encumbrances the Northern part of the said house.
31. The evidence of respondent No.1 as PW.1 is the same with that of her plaint averments. In her cross-examination she stated that the suit property was initially in the name of her father-in-law, then the property was transferred in the name of her mother-in-law through a Gift Settlement Deed. Suit property is given for development and that she has filed DVC case No.13 of 2009 and C.C.No.2048 of 2009 under Section 498A of IPC against the defendants (respondent Nos.3 to 6 and appellant herein) and the same was quashed by the High Court. Appeal is pending before the High Court against the judgment in DVC No.13 of 2009. She denied the suggestion that respondent No.3-defendant No.1 has purchased four plots of 200 square yards each in Hayathnagar in the name of her husband Madhava Rao in the year 2006. She also denied the suggestion that suit schedule property is the self acquired property of respondent No.3-defendant No.1 and that she is not entitled for the relief in the suit as she already married Santosh Reddy and begotten a daughter.
32. PW.2-T.Srinivas deposed that Late R.Chandrashekar has purchased plot admeasuring 426 square yards in the name of respondent No.3-defendant No.1 for the purpose of the welfare of 14/23 BRMR,J AS_465_2023 the joint family and that respondent No.3-defendant No.1 is a housewife, she has no source of income of her own and the schedule property is given for development. The developer has completed the construction and named it as "Balaji Nivas Residential Complex". He also spoke about the harassment meted out to respondent No.1- plaintiff No.1 from respondent No.3- defendant No.1 and her family members and that respondent No.1
- plaintiff No.1 is having equal right along with defendants (respondent Nos.3 to 6 and appellant herein) as joint owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and that they are entitled for their share. In his cross-examination he stated that he do not know who has purchased the suit schedule property and from whom. He know that the suit schedule property was purchased by father-in-law of PW.1. He do not know about the details of the suit schedule property as to its extent and boundaries and also do not know whether respondent No.3-defendant No.1 has purchased the plot and he do not know whether PW.1 has married one Santosh Reddy through him she has a daughter. He denied the suggestion that he is giving false evidence.
33.1. The evidence of the appellant as DW.1 is the replica of his written statement and additional written statement. In his cross- examination he stated that his mother has purchased the suit 15/23 BRMR,J AS_465_2023 schedule property in the year 1981, she sold her gold ornaments, pooled the sale consideration to purchase the suit property.S elling of gold ornaments is not ment ioned in the sale deed. Rajesham is the husband of defendant No.2 (respondent No.4 herein), due to financial problems they sold part of the suit schedule property to the husband of defendant No.2 (respondent No.4 herein). His mother gave the suit property for development after the death of his father which was in 50:50 ratio. He stayed in the suit property with his family including the respondent Nos.1 and 2 -plaintiffs and Madhava Rao. He adopted the written statement filed by his mother (respondent No.3-defendant No.1) and his mother has executed 11 documents in respect of suit schedule property during her lifetime in the month of August, 2010 and he know the contents of the written statement filed by his mother and the execution of 11 documents is not mentioned in her written statement. PW.1 was not cross-examined on the 11 documents executed by his mother and for the first time, he has stated about the said documents in his evidence affidavit. PW.1 has filed Section 498A case and DVC. There is no mention about the Gift Deeds executed by his mother in his favour in DVC case. Four Sale Deeds were handed over to respondent No.1-plaintiff No.1 which stands in the name of Madhava Rao. His mother did not execute any documents for the joint family. He did not file any 16/23 BRMR,J AS_465_2023 document to show that respondent No.1 - plaintiff No.1 married another person. Birth certificate of the child does not show the name of the respondent No.1-plaintiff No.1 as Padma. Witness adds that alias name of Padma is Spandana Reddy. 33.2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2- plaintiffs got issued legal notice to him in the year 2009 and he did not issue reply. His mother has transferred 11 portions under 11 Gift Deeds in his favour after issuance of legal notice by respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs in the year 2009. He has not filed the Gift Settlement Deeds in the Court. Schedule 'A' to 'K' properties belongs to his mother. Schedule 'A' to 'K' properties are not mortgaged with any person or Bank and his sisters got married prior to development of the suit schedule properties. He do not know whether the factum of execution of 11 Gift Settlement Deeds in his favour is not disclosed before the Court from the date of filing the suit till date (06.03.2019). Appellant denied the suggestion that they have received the summons in the suit before execution of 11 documents and he kept his mother in his custody, his mother has admitted that his father has purchased the suit schedule property, after receipt of legal notice by him with an intention to deprive the legitimate share of respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs, he got executed 11 gift settlement deeds in his favour through his 17/23 BRMR,J AS_465_2023 mother. Appellant also denied the suggestion that respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs are entitled for share in the suit property. 34.1. DW.2 -R.Sudershan deposed that he is a third party to the proceedings. Respondent No.3-defendant No.1 is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property. Respondent No.1-plaintiff No.1 picked up quarrel and left the matrimonial home, filed criminal cases. Respondent No.3-defendant No.1 has purchased the property from her personal savings got from her tailoring work and by selling her gold ornaments, during her life time she has executed several Gift Deeds in favour of appellant-defendant No.4 in respect of suit schedule property. Respondent No.1-plaintiff No.1 married one Santhosh Reddy, through him she gave birth to a child. He tried to pacify their disputes between the family members but the mediation proved futile. He filed the photograph of respondent No.1-plaintiff No.1 with Santhosh Reddy which is Ex.B29.
34.2. In his cross-examination he stated that he did not read the written statement of respondent No.3-defendant No.1 and he perused the written statement of appellant-defendant No.4. Appellant-defendant No.4 stated that respondent No.1-plaintiff No.1 remarried and daughter is born out of lawful wedlock.
18/23 BRMR,J
AS_465_2023
Madhava Rao died in the year 2007. Respondent No.1-plaintiff No.1 left the house in the month of July, 2009 and she lodged criminal cases against the family members. In spite of Court orders respondent No.1-plaintiff No.1 was not allowed to enter the Apartment and she was paid maintenance till the date of DVC case. He came to know from his relatives that respondent No.1- plaintiff No.1 has married for the second time in the year 2010. He do not know from whom the property was purchased by respondent No.3-defendant No.1 and the sale consideration was about Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. He was not present when the Sale Deed was executed in the year 1981. Respondent No.3- defendant No.1 husband was alive at the time of purchasing the suit schedule property in the year 1981. Respondent No.3- defendant No.1 was doing tailoring at her house without there being any shop name.
34.3. He do not know the details of gold ornaments sold by respondent No.3-defendant No.1 for purchasing the suit property. He do not know the exact number of Gift Deeds executed by respondent No.3-defendant No.1 in favour of appellant-defendant No.4 and he was not present during that time. He do not know whether respondent No.3-defendant No.1 was examined as a witness in DVC case and deposed that suit schedule property was 19/23 BRMR,J AS_465_2023 purchased by her husband in her name. He is a tenant in the house of appellant-defendant No.4. He denied the suggestion that he do not know anything about the case facts and giving false evidence and that respondent No.3-defendant No.1 never executed any Gift Settlement Deeds in favour of appellant-defendant No.4, they are forged and fabricated documents.
35. In Gangamma, the Supreme Court observed at Para Nos.9 and 13 which reads as under:
"9. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has a bearing on the issue. As the properties at Items 1 and 2 are recorded in the name of the appellant, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary in this case, the appellant by operation of Section 14(1) of the said Act is the full owner of those properties. In the facts of this case discussed above it has to be accepted that those properties are not joint properties but the appellant is the sole owner of those properties.
13. In view of such consistent views taken by this Court on the interpretation of Section 14, we hold that Section 14(1) of the said Act would apply in respect of the properties which stand in the name of the appellant and the appellant would be the full owner of those properties".
36. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs submits that the interplay between sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act was referred to a larger 20/23 BRMR,J AS_465_2023 bench in Tej Bhan case. Hence, the decision cited by the appellant counsel is not applicable to the case on hand.
37. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-defendant No.4 in reply placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors., Vs. Jammu And Kashmir National Conference & Anr. 4, the Supreme Court has laid down the Doctrine of Precedents in Para No.35 which reads as under:
"35. Doctrine of Precedent:
• Conflicting Judgments: If there are conflicting judgments from benches of equal strength, High Courts must follow the earlier decision unless it has been overruled by a larger bench.
• Pending References: A lower Court cannot refuse to follow a settled Supreme Court judgment simply because a review or reference to a larger bench is pending against it. The law as it stands must be applied".
38. In view of the above said decision of the Supreme Court the law as it stands is Gangamma case.
39.1. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-defendant No.4 that endorsement made by the Sub- Registrar cannot be taken for deciding whether the suit property was purchased by the husband of respondent No.3 - defendant 4 2023 LawSuit (SC) 890 21/23 BRMR,J AS_465_2023 No.1. Mere payment of the amount by the husband of respondent No.3 - defendant No.1 that does not say that the property is purchased by him in his wife's name.
39.2. The learned trial Court has lost sight of Ex.A3 - Sale Deed executed by respondent No.3-defendant No.1 while disposing of 58 square yards in favour of third party.
40. The burden is on the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs to prove that respondent No.3-defendant No.1 has no source of income of her own in the year 1981 to purchase the suit property. Except the evidence of respondent No.1-plaintiff No.1 and PW.2 no other evidence is adduced by her to prove that the suit schedule property is purchased by the husband of respondent No.3 - defendant No.1. PW.2 evidence will not support the case of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs in view of the admissions made by him in his cross-examination that he do not know who purchased the suit schedule property from whom and he further went on to say that it was purchased by the father-in-law of PW.1 and he do not know about the details of the suit schedule property and its extent and boundaries.
41. There is no material on record to show that respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs have discharged their initial burden in 22/23 BRMR,J AS_465_2023 showing that they are in joint and constructive possession over the suit schedule property.
42.1. The decisions cited by the appellant-defendant No.4 counsel in Bipani Paul1, Gangamma2 are squarely applicable to the case on hand.
42.2. Respondent No.3 - defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit schedule property in pursuance of Ex.A1-registered Sale Deed.
43. There is no pleading in the written statement of respondent No.3 - defendant No.1 that she executed Registered Gift Settlement Deeds in favour of the appellant-defendant No.4. Appellant - defendant No.4 for the first time stated in the additional written statement that his mother has executed Gift Settlement Deeds in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property. In the absence of specific pleading with regard to Gift Settlement Deeds in favour of appellant-defendant No.4 by respondent No.3-defendant No.1, no semblance can be given to the said documents.
44. In view of the reasons above the learned trial Court has not appreciated the facts of the case in right perspective and erroneously decreed the suit of the respondent Nos.1 and 2- plaintiffs, which is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Hence, points are answered accordingly.
23/23 BRMR,J
AS_465_2023
45. AS.No.465 of 2023 is allowed. Judgment and Decree passed by the the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in OS.No.438 of 2010, dated 06.10.2023 is set aside and the suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs is dismissed without costs.
Interim orders if any stands vacated, miscellaneous petition/petitions stands closed.
______________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
21st APRIL, 2026
PLV
24/23 BRMR,J
AS_465_2023