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
