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
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
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
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
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
