Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Jayaprada vs S. Narsimha Reddy (Died) As Per Lrs on 24 February, 2026
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ SLP(C) NOS.2262-2263/2024)
JAYAPRADA & ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
S. NARSIMHA REDDY (DIED) AS PER LRS & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants before us are the plaintiffs in the suit. The suit has been filed for partition seeking 1/6th share each in the Suit Schedule property claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased Sudhakar Reddy and deceased Rathnamma.
3. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence, was pleased to decree the suit, which was confirmed by the Signature Not Verified First Appellate Court. However, the High Court by the Digitally signed by SWETA BALODI Date: 2026.03.09 16:33:37 IST impugned order reversed the same on the premise that the Reason: appellants had not established the fact that the suit properties belonged to their mother, Rathnamma and that, 2 as the succession had opened earlier upon the death of their father, Sudhakar Reddy, the appellants had no right to seek partition.
4. We have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’), after the 1976 amendment, is rather restrictive in nature. Under Section 96 of the CPC, the First Appellate Court is the final Court on facts and law. Unless there exists a substantial question of law which, if answered in favour of the appellants, would have the effect of reversing the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, there shall not be any interference with the same by the Second Appellate Court.
6. In the case on hand, the questions of law framed are, in fact, mere questions of fact. It is not the case of the appellants that the parents of their mother contributed to the purchase of the Suit Schedule property. The said issue itself is irrelevant. In other words, whether the property belongs to the mother or father does not change the legal position. The reliance made by the High Court on the decision of this Court is no longer good law in view of the decision of the larger Bench of this Court in ‘Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors.’ reported in (2020) 9 SCC 3
1.
7. Thus, looking from any perspective, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, as confirmed by the First Appellate Court stands restored.
8. The appeals are allowed, accordingly.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. the appeal is allowed.
……………………………………………………………………J. [M.M. SUNDRESH] ………………………………………………………………………J. [NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH] NEW DELHI;
24th FEBRUARY, 2026
4
ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.5 SECTION XII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2262-2263/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-08-2023 in RIA No. 1/2023 01-03-2023 in SA No. 921/2011 passed by the High Court for The State of Telangana at Hyderabad] JAYAPRADA & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS S. NARSIMHA REDDY (DIED) AS PER LRS & ORS. Respondent(s) [MEDIATION REPORT RECEIVED] IA No. 268538/2023 - APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ABATEMENT IA No. 268536/2023 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION IA No. 261414/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 261412/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 268537/2023 - SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT Date : 24-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv.
Mr. V Venkata Mayur, Adv.
Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv.
Mr. Nanda Kumar K B, Adv.
For M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Navinkumar Pahwa, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv.
Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv.
Mr. Tushar Singh, Adv.
For M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Applications for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside the abatement, for setting aside the 5 abatement, for substitution are allowed.
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SWETA BALODI) (POONAM VAID) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)