Telangana High Court
P. Shoba vs P. Bhadramma , Subhadra on 30 June, 2025
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
APPEAL SUIT No. 1057 OF 2003
JUDGMENT
I have heard Mr.Y.Srinivasa Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for
the appellants. None appeared for respondent Nos.3 and 5.
2. This Appeal Suit is preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs
challenging the decree and judgment dated 21.01.2003 in O.S.No.161
of 1998 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Warangal, whereby the suit claim for partition of the plaint schedule
properties has been dismissed.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to with
their status before the trial Court.
4.(a). Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that, the plaintiffs are
the wife and children of Defendant No.2. They initiated the suit seeking
partition of the properties listed in the plaint schedule, asserting that
these are joint family properties originally belonging to the deceased
father-in-law of Plaintiff No.1 and his sons, i.e., Defendants 2 to 4.
Following his demise, his sons allegedly continued to manage the joint
family business, acquiring not only immovable properties but also gold
ornaments and other moveable assets.
2 NTR,J
4.(b). Plaintiff No.1 claims that her husband, Defendant No.2,
developed a dependency on various vices and neglected both the
family and the family business. Taking advantage of this situation,
Defendant Nos.1, 3, and 4, being the husband's mother and brothers,
began to conceal joint family funds and refused to provide even
minimal financial support. These actions led to domestic discord.
Upon questioning these developments, Plaintiff No.1 experienced
further familial strain, leading to intervention by elders, who attempted
to mediate a partition and ensure separate possession. Despite these
efforts, the defendants refused the partition and asserted that Plaintiff
No.1 had no entitlement to claim a share.
4.(c). As a result of this discord, Plaintiff No.1 returned to her
parental home and assumed the responsibility of maintaining her minor
children (Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4). Upon formally demanding partition, the
defendants again refused. Defendant Nos.5 and 6, who are daughters
married long ago, do not assert any claim over the suit schedule
properties. It is therefore contended that Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are
each entitled to an equal share, and that Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are
collectively entitled to 3/20th share each from the 1/5th share of
Defendant No.2. The plaintiffs consequently seek the appointment of a
Commissioner to partition the properties with metes and bounds, and
3 NTR,J
to create a charge on the properties for the maintenance of Plaintiff
No.1.
5.(a). In response, Defendant Nos.1, 3, 4, and 5 filed separate
written statements. Defendant No.1 denied the claim that the suit
schedule properties are joint family assets, asserting instead that her
late husband had self-acquired the properties. She further claimed that
the defendants independently operate separate businesses.
Defendant No.1 specifically alleged that the gold ornaments listed in
the plaint schedule constitute her 'Stridhanam' (woman's personal
property). She added that, following the marriage of Plaintiff No.1 and
Defendant No.2, and in response to demands for partition, she and her
husband had allotted a share in the business, M/s. Chandra Mohan
Gunnies Merchant, Warangal, to Defendant No.2. The current suit, she
contends, is a calculated attempt by Plaintiff No.1 to wrongfully acquire
more property.
5.(b). Defendant No.1 also averred that Suit Schedule-A(1) and
A(3) properties are the self-acquired properties of her husband;
Schedule-A(2), B, and D properties are her own acquisitions; and
Schedule-C business belongs exclusively to Defendant No.3. She,
thus, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4 NTR,J
5.(c). Defendants Nos.3, 4, and 5, in their respective written
statements, affirmed and supported the contentions made by
Defendant No.1.
6. In the set of adverse stance, the trial Court framed the following
issues:
i) Whether the suit properties are the joint family properties of
the plaintiff and defendants?
ii) Whether the suit properties are self-acquired properties of
defendant No.1 and her husband?
iii) To what relief?
Additional Issue:
Whether the suit is barred by limitation after amending the
plaint?
7. During the trial, Plaintiff No.1 testified as PW-1. However, she
did not produce nor have any documents marked as exhibits in support
of her case. On the other hand, while the defendants did not present
any oral evidence, they got marked a registered sale deed/Ex.B-1, and
a Property Tax Receipt/Ex.B-2.
8. The trial Court, upon evaluating the material available on record,
observed that Plaintiff No.1/PW-1 had instituted the suit without
furnishing specific details or documentary evidence pertaining to the
5 NTR,J
properties in question. It was also noted that she failed to complete her
cross-examination. Importantly, the plaintiff did not file any documents
to substantiate the claim that the suit schedule properties were joint
family properties. In view of the absence of necessary documentary
proof and the incomplete examination of the plaintiff, the trial Court
dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the
present appeal has been filed.
9.(a). Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that
the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the factual assertions and
legal contentions advanced by the plaintiffs. It was submitted that, at
the very least, the trial Court ought to have considered the right of
Plaintiff No.1 to maintenance from the joint family assets. Learned
Senior Counsel further argued that the defendants, by their own
admissions, acknowledged that the properties in question belonged to
the family, and such admissions should have been given due weight.
9.(b). It was also emphasized that the properties were allegedly
acquired during a period when the defendants were minors and had no
independent source of income, thereby supporting the presumption
that the properties were acquired through joint family funds.
Additionally, it was brought to the Court's attention that during the
pendency of the suit, the parties had reached a compromise.
6 NTR,J
However, the trial Court proceeded to adjudicate the matter and pass a
decree without affording the parties an opportunity to place the terms
of the compromise on record.
9.(c). Furthermore, the trial Court erroneously recorded that
Plaintiff No.1 had failed to cooperate during cross-examination, despite
the surrounding circumstances. In light of the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, it was submitted that the trial Court ought to
have decreed the suit, either wholly or at least partially. Accordingly,
the appellants have prayed for this Court's intervention and
appropriate relief.
10. I have carefully perused the materials on record.
11. The questions that arise for determination in this appeal are :
i) Whether Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 (Appellant Nos.2 to 4) are legally
entitled to a share in the partition of the suit schedule
properties?
ii) Whether the trial Court properly appreciated the facts and
applied the correct legal principles in rendering the impugned
judgment and decree?
12. The plaintiffs/appellants filed the present suit seeking partition of
the properties described in the plaint schedule, claiming that they
7 NTR,J
constitute joint family properties. They asserted that, following the
death of Plaintiff No.1's father-in-law, all his children became entitled to
a share in the said properties, and that Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4, through
Defendant No.2 (one of the sons), are similarly entitled to such a
share. In response, the defendants contended that the properties were
the self-acquired assets of the deceased father-in-law, and further
claimed that some of the properties were acquired independently by
Defendant No.1.
13. It is a settled principle of law that the initial burden of proof lies
upon the plaintiffs, particularly where the defendants have raised a
plea that is adverse to the plaintiffs' assertions. Therefore, the plaintiffs
were required to establish that the plaint schedule properties are
indeed joint family properties.
14. However, the record reveals that Plaintiff No.1, apart from
examining herself as PW-1, did not produce any documentary
evidence in support of her claim. Significantly, it is on record that
Plaintiff No.1/PW-1 failed to present herself for complete
cross-examination. While the plaintiffs attempted to rely on the
admissions made by the defendants in their pleadings, specifically
regarding Schedule-A(1) and A(3) properties allegedly being
self-acquired by the deceased father-in-law, they contended that, upon
8 NTR,J
his intestate death, Defendant No.2 would have a right in such
properties, thereby extending derivative rights to the plaintiffs.
Furthermore, it was argued that the remaining properties, though
registered in the name of Defendant No.1, were allegedly acquired
using joint family funds and hence belong to the joint family.
Nonetheless, the only evidence offered was the oral testimony of
Plaintiff No.1/PW-1. Her testimony, taken together with admissions
made during her cross-examination and the admitted title documents
reflecting the names of the defendants as owners, falls short of proving
the essential foundational fact that the suit schedule properties were
joint family properties. Consequently, the plaintiffs have not
successfully established their legal entitlement to seek partition.
15. In the absence of such proof, the trial Court was justified in
concluding that the plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claim.
Moreover, the trial Court rightly observed that both parties had been
afforded sufficient opportunities to present evidence, which they failed
to fully utilize. If, indeed, a compromise had been reached during the
pendency of the suit, it was open to the appellants/plaintiffs to have
brought it on record either at the trial stage or even during the
pendency of this appeal. Their failure to do so renders their argument,
9 NTR,J
that the trial Court denied them an opportunity to file the compromise,
unpersuasive and devoid of merit.
16. In light of the above, this Court finds no error, impropriety, or
illegality in the findings and conclusions of the trial Court. For the
foregoing reasons, and in the absence of any procedural or
substantive infirmity, the impugned judgment and decree passed by
the trial Court merit affirmation.
17. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is liable to be and is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 30.06.2025
svl
