Telangana High Court
Sriramulu Gangavva vs Kumbaji Indira on 6 January, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
SECOND APPEAL No. 187 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
Heard Mr.Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellant on admission and also heard Mr.Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 and 8.
2. This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 11.10.2022 passed in A.S.No.30 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Adilabad, whereby the decree and judgment dated 28.12.2018 in O.S.No.12 of 2014 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Boath, Adilabad District, has been affirmed.
3. The suit was for partition of the plaint schedule properties in two items to the extent of Ac.1-24 gts., in Sy.No.147/ఈ/1 and Ac.1-24 gts., in Sy.No.147/ఈ/2, situated at Sonala Village of Boath Mandal, Adilabad District (for short 'the subject property').
4. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') and respondent Nos.1 to 5/defendant Nos.1 to 5 (hereinafter 'the defendant Nos.1 to 5') are the siblings 2 NTR,J S.A. No.187 of 2024 and step daughters of Vadla Gangu Bai. The plaintiff's case is that originally the subject property belonged to Vadla Gangu Bai and after her demise, the plaintiff and her sisters are equally entitled for a share in the subject property. The Courts below by observing that there was partition and the title deeds issued by revenue authorities are specifying the shares of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and consequent sales of the subject property under registered sale deeds by them in favour of respondent No.6/defendant No.6, dismissed the suit. On appeal, with similar observations, the first appellate Court confirmed the Judgment of the trial Court. Thus, the plaintiff preferred present appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently pleaded that the original pattadar pass book/Ex.A-14 is establishing the title of Vadla Gangu Bai over the subject property. The testimonies of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 as DWs 1 and 2 are making out that the subject property is joint family property and there was no partition among them and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 categorically denied execution of any sale deed in favour of the respondent No.6/defendant No.6. Nonetheless, the Courts below disregarding the evidence and by erroneously reading the revenue records 3 NTR,J S.A. No.187 of 2024 dismissed the suit and appeal. For this reason, prayed for intervention in the Second Appeal.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 and 8 would submit that the trial and first appellate Courts had considered the statements of DWs 1 and 2 in determining the aspects of joint family status of subject property and entitlement of plaintiff for partition. The revenue records including mutation and pattadar pass books are in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and they selling off the subject property claiming as their property is confirming their proprietary right. Therefore, the trial and first appellate Courts were proper in declining the suit claim for partition.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel and perused the materials on record.
8. The facts that the subject property is originally in the name of Vadla Gangu Bai under Ex.A-14 and subsequently, the revenue authority issuing pattadar pass book and title deed in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 are not in dispute. As per the plaintiff, the subject property is joint family property and she is entitled for share along with other siblings. Axiomatically, onus lies on the plaintiff to establish joint family status and availability of the subject property for 4 NTR,J S.A. No.187 of 2024 partition. To establish these aspects, the plaintiff relied on her statements as PW-1 and the oral evidence of defendant Nos.1 and 2 as DWs 1 and 2. However, admittedly, the title deed and pattadar pass book/Exs.B-3 and B-4 are in the name of the defendant Nos.1 and 2. Additionally, the fact of availing loan by them by mortgaging these deeds is in agreement. Further, in the sale deeds-Exs.B-1 and B-2, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 as vendees averred that by virtue of pattadar pass books and title deeds, they are the owners of the subject property. The certified copies of pahanies/Exs.B-6 and B-7 are reflecting that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the pattadars. A juxtaposition of these materials are evidencing that the plaintiff's claim is hinging on the oral evidence of the defendant Nos.1 and 2. However, the mutation of revenue records, execution of sale deeds by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and though disputed execution of sale deeds, remaining silent all along is compelling to draw conclusion that the documentary evidence is overbearing the oral evidence. It is well settled that, documents generally considered more objective than oral evidence as subjective influences will not affect or be distorted.
9. For these reasons, the materials placed by the plaintiff are falling short in establishing the essential aspects of subject property 5 NTR,J S.A. No.187 of 2024 is joint family property and the same is available for partition. That being the factual position, the conclusions drawn by the Courts below basing on the documentary evidence are found proper and justified. Therefore, it shall be held that the plaintiff failed to make out any tenable ground for deliberation, much less, any substantial question of law for admission of the appeal.
10. Resultantly, this Second Appeal is liable to be and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 06.01.2025 svl