Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 10 (TS)

Gampana Gandaiah v. Gampana Lachaiah

2026-01-05

K.SUJANA

body2026
JUDGMENT : K. SUJANA, J. 1. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2002 passed in O.S.No.465 of 1994 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, the present appeal suit is filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of agricultural lands measuring a total extent of Ac.45.18 guntas situated in Panjaguda village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. These lands originally belonged to two brothers, Gumpana Chennaiah and Gumpana Yenkaiah, each holding a half share. After Chennaiah died issueless, his share was succeeded by his widow, Narsamma, who resided with and was maintained by the plaintiffs until her death in the year 1985. The plaintiffs claimed that Narsamma executed a registered Will dated 03.07.1984 bequeathing her entire share to them. They contended that, despite the Will and subsequent mutation of their names in the revenue records, the defendants had refused to partition the land, necessitating the suit for partition and separate possession. 3. On the other hand, defendant Nos.1 to 3, who were legal heirs of Yenkaiah and Narsamma, contested the suit, claiming that the plaintiffs had no legal right to the share of Narsamma. They contended that there had been a family arrangement on 02.06.1984 in which Narsamma’s share was equally divided between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3, and that the arrangement had been acted upon. They alleged that the Will produced by the plaintiffs was a forged and fabricated document, and that the plaintiffs had not proved its execution properly. The defendants also asserted that they were in exclusive possession of the lands and had perfected title by adverse possession. Furthermore, they questioned the locus standi of the plaintiffs, the correctness of the Court fee paid, and raised the issue of limitation. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed five issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to A18 are marked. DWs.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.B1 to B11 were marked on behalf of the defendants. 5. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed five issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to A18 are marked. DWs.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.B1 to B11 were marked on behalf of the defendants. 5. After examining the evidence, the trial Court, vide order dated 30.09.2002, decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the execution and validity of the Will (Ex.A7), as the testatrix, Narsamma, was an illiterate and aged woman, and the evidence did not show that the contents were read over and explained to her in a language she understood. The trial Court found that the Will was suspicious and unreliable. However, the trial Court also found that the family arrangement (Ex.B11) had not been acted upon or proved sufficiently to confer exclusive rights on the defendants. It was further held that, in the absence of a valid Will or enforceable family settlement, the plaintiffs and defendants were entitled to equal shares in the estate of Chennaiah, inherited by Narsamma. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit by granting a preliminary decree, holding that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 were each entitled to a one-fourth share in the share of Chennaiah, and defendant Nos.1 to 3 were also entitled to half share in the portion inherited from Yenkaiah. The trial Court rejected the plea of limitation and adverse possession and directed partition and separate possession as prayed for, with each party bearing their own costs. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants/plaintiffs filed the present Appeal Suit. 6. Heard Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Sri G.Ramchander Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 9, Sri Krishna Kishore Kovvouri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.10, Sri S.Shyam Sunder Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.11, Sri G.Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 12 and Sri K.Aravind Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.13. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was contrary to the record and the probabilities of the case and that the trial Court had failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and had reached an erroneous conclusion that the appellants had not established their claim. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was contrary to the record and the probabilities of the case and that the trial Court had failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and had reached an erroneous conclusion that the appellants had not established their claim. He further submitted that the plaintiffs had clearly proved their entitlement to the share of late Narsamma through a registered Will deed, marked as Ex.A7. According to him, Ex.A7 was duly proved through the testimony of PW2, who was one of the attesting witnesses to the Will. Despite this, the trial Court rejected the Will solely on the ground that the testatrix, being illiterate and unfamiliar with English, could not have executed a Will in English and that this reasoning was unfounded, particularly when the Will was implemented upon the death of Narsamma and the name of the appellants were mutated in the revenue records accordingly. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the documents produced by the respondents themselves revealed that the share of Narsamma was in the possession and enjoyment of the appellants, and following her death, the same was duly mutated in their favour. He pointed out that the respondents had taken contradictory stands regarding their claim over the share of Narsamma, at one stage claiming to have purchased it, and at another stage, asserting a family settlement under Ex.B11. He emphasized that Ex.B11 was never produced in earlier proceedings nor was it submitted to the revenue authorities for mutation, thereby raising doubts about its authenticity and enforceability. He further contended that the trial Court failed to take note of the inconsistencies in the evidence of DW1, whose testimony was allegedly contrary to the documentary record and, according to the learned counsel, indicative of deliberate falsehood. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this appeal suit. 9. He further contended that the trial Court failed to take note of the inconsistencies in the evidence of DW1, whose testimony was allegedly contrary to the documentary record and, according to the learned counsel, indicative of deliberate falsehood. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this appeal suit. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition was not maintainable, as the partition among the three brothers, Shivaiah, Chennaiah, and Latchaiah, had already taken place and that the real dispute was only regarding the entitlement to the share of late Chennaiah, and since the plaintiffs were claiming title based on a Will (Ex.A7), they ought to have filed a suit for declaration or injunction, rather than one for partition. He further submitted that Will Ex.A7 was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and that plaintiff No.2 had earlier filed O.P.No.69 of 1968 claiming to be the adopted son of Chennaiah, which was dismissed. Learned counsel emphasized that the plaintiffs had also previously filed O.S.No.139 of 1984 against Narsamma (the testatrix of the Will), which undermined their current claim under the Will and he highlighted several defects in the Will. He further submitted that Ex.A7 contained no schedule, no survey numbers, and no mention of extent of land. He argued that the Will was written in English, but there was no evidence that its contents were explained to Narsamma in Telugu, though she was an illiterate markswoman and that both plaintiffs, who were the main beneficiaries under the Will, did not enter the witness box, which warranted an adverse inference against them. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to inconsistencies in the evidence. PW1 admitted that he purchased the stamp papers and did not know the date or time of execution. PW2, the attesting witness, did not know the language in which the Will was typed and admitted that the advocate had dictated it. Furthermore, the Will showed two conflicting ages for the testatrix, 60 and 70 years, which raised further doubts. He also pointed out that Ex.A8, the mutation record, wrongly referred to a Will dated 25.06.1984, whereas Ex.A7 bore the date 03.07.1984. Furthermore, the Will showed two conflicting ages for the testatrix, 60 and 70 years, which raised further doubts. He also pointed out that Ex.A8, the mutation record, wrongly referred to a Will dated 25.06.1984, whereas Ex.A7 bore the date 03.07.1984. He further contended that the Will was never properly proved, and referred to authoritative judgments where Courts had held that in cases of suspicious circumstances, the onus lies heavily on the propounder to remove all doubts. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgments in the case of Sivakoti Dasarandharam and others v. sivakoti Yoganandam and others , AIR 1996 AP 273 , Addepalli Venkata Laxmi v. Ayinampudi Narasimha Rao and others , AIR 1994 AP 72 and Bandaru Manikyala Rao and others v. Kedari Srinivasa Rao and others , 2020 (6) ALD 184 , which emphasized the importance of attesting witnesses being examined, explanation of contents to illiterate testators, and the necessity of the propounder entering the witness box. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Appeal Suit. 11. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: i. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a share in the suit schedule property for partition and separate possession? ii. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation on the ground that they were out of possession of the suit schedule property? iii. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court requires any interference? Point Nos. i to iii : 12. Upon considering the submissions made by both parties, it is observed that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule lands. They contend that the plaintiffs are real brothers and that the suit schedule lands constitute joint property of Gumpana Chennaiah and Gumpana Yenkaiah, the father of defendant No.1, each holding an equal half share. It is stated that Gumpana Chennaiah died issueless approximately 25 years ago, and his share devolved upon his wife, late Narsamma. The plaintiffs’ claim that since Chennaiah died without any legal heirs, both the plaintiffs and the defendants are entitled to equal shares in the suit schedule property. It is stated that Gumpana Chennaiah died issueless approximately 25 years ago, and his share devolved upon his wife, late Narsamma. The plaintiffs’ claim that since Chennaiah died without any legal heirs, both the plaintiffs and the defendants are entitled to equal shares in the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the defendants argue that disputes between the parties are longstanding and referred to O.P. No. 69 of 1968 filed by the second plaintiff before the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking a declaration that he was the adopted son of the late Chennaiah. However, the said petition was dismissed. 13. Subsequently, in 1978, the first defendant and the father of defendants 2 and 3 filed O.S. No. 258 of 1978 before the District Munsif, Ibrahimpatnam, seeking a decree of perpetual injunction against the plaintiffs, Narsamma (wife of Chennaiah), and others. In that suit, it was asserted that during his lifetime, Chennaiah had executed an agreement of sale in favour of the first defendant and the father of defendants 2 and 3, and after his demise, his wife Narsamma also executed a similar agreement in their favour. 14. During the pendency of the said suit, with the intervention and advice of well-wishers and village elders, all the parties entered into a family arrangement. As per this arrangement, Narsamma’s share was equally divided among the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3, and the arrangement was acted upon by all parties. However, the plaintiffs, allegedly with an intention to usurp the share of defendants, filed O.S. No. 139 of 1984 before the District Munsif, Ibrahimpatnam. In that suit, the plaintiffs allegedly filed a written statement purportedly signed by Narsamma, which the defendants claim was forged. The suit was not pressed against the father of defendant No.1 and the father of defendants 2 and 3, and a decree was obtained solely against Narsamma. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 and the father of defendants 2 and 3 filed A.S. No. 19 of 1985 before the Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District. While disposing of the appeal, the Court observed that the suit was one for injunction simplicitor, and the decree passed therein would be binding only on the third respondent. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ claim of ownership over Narsamma’s share was held to be without merit. Furthermore, the Will allegedly executed by Narsamma was found to be forged and fabricated. While disposing of the appeal, the Court observed that the suit was one for injunction simplicitor, and the decree passed therein would be binding only on the third respondent. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ claim of ownership over Narsamma’s share was held to be without merit. Furthermore, the Will allegedly executed by Narsamma was found to be forged and fabricated. It was thus concluded that Narsamma ceased to be the owner of property in view of the family arrangement. 15. Even otherwise, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3, being Class-II legal heirs, are entitled to equal shares in the property left behind by Narsamma. As per the family arrangement, the defendants are entitled to Ac.17.19 guntas of land in Narsamma’s property situated in Survey Nos. 24, 25, 29, and 30. There is no dispute regarding the relationship among the parties. Gumpana Shivaiah, Chennaiah, and Yenkaiah were real brothers. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the sons of Shivaiah. Chennaiah died issueless, and defendant No.1 and the father of defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of Yenkaiah. There is also no dispute regarding the properties of their respective fathers in Meerkhanpet and Panjaguda villages. These properties were partitioned, with the lands at Meerkhanpet falling to the share of the plaintiffs’ father, and the lands at Panjaguda falling to the share of Chennaiah and Yenkaiah. Chennaiah died leaving behind his wife Narsamma as his sole legal heir. According to the plaintiffs, Narsamma executed a registered Will deed dated 03.07.1984 in their favour, bequeathing all the landed property that had fallen to her husband’s share and was succeeded by her. By virtue of this Will (Ex.A.7), the plaintiffs claim ownership of half of the suit schedule lands. It is further contended that during the lifetime of Chennaiah and Yenkaiah, the suit lands were not partitioned by metes and bounds. Therefore, based on the Will deed (Ex.A.7), the plaintiffs assert entitlement to a half share in the properties at Meerkhanpet village. However, the defendants dispute the validity of Will, alleging it to be a fabricated document. They argue that the Will is written in English, whereas Narsamma was illiterate, as was the attesting witness, who also did not know English. Consequently, the Will was not duly proved by the plaintiffs before the trial Court. 16. However, the defendants dispute the validity of Will, alleging it to be a fabricated document. They argue that the Will is written in English, whereas Narsamma was illiterate, as was the attesting witness, who also did not know English. Consequently, the Will was not duly proved by the plaintiffs before the trial Court. 16. Going through the said contention, though Ex.A.7 registered Will deed is in English which was executed by Narsamma on 03.07.1984 bequeathing her movable and immovable properties in favour of plaintiffs, that is not a ground to disbelieve the registered Will deed executed by her and the said Will deed is proved by examining the attestor- Pw.2. Mere illiteracy is not a ground to disbelieve the Will deed executed by Narsamma. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and others vs. Metapalli Muthaiah (D) by LRs. 2025 SCC Online SC 1488 , wherein it was held as under : “9. The Will is a registered document. The defendant- Muthaiah in his evidence, admitted the signatures as appearing on the said Will (Ext.-A1) to be that of his father, i.e., M. Rajanna. The Will distributed the properties in defined proportions between the plaintiff-Lasum Bai, defendant- Muthaiah and Rajamma (widowed daughter of M. Rajanna). There is ample material on record to establish that M. Rajanna anticipated that the relations between plaintiff-Lasum Bai and defendant-Muthaiah were not congenial and that is why, in order to avoid future conflicts, he divided his properties by way of a family settlement and bequeathed a share thereof to plaintiff-Lasum Bai, while leaving the major share to his son i.e., the defendant-Muthaiah. The distribution of the properties, as per the family settlement (regarding which oral evidence was led), and the registered Will is almost in the same proportions. The Will, is a registered document and thus there is a presumption regarding genuineness thereof. The trial Court accepted the execution of the Will based on the evidence led before it. As the Will is a registered document, the burden would lie on the party who disputed its existence thereof, who would be defendant-Muthaiah in this case, to establish that it was not executed in the manner as alleged or that there were suspicious circumstances which made the same doubtful. As the Will is a registered document, the burden would lie on the party who disputed its existence thereof, who would be defendant-Muthaiah in this case, to establish that it was not executed in the manner as alleged or that there were suspicious circumstances which made the same doubtful. However, the defendant-Muthaiah in his evidence, admitted the signatures as appearing on the registered Will to be those of his father, M. Rajanna. He also admitted the fact that the plaintiff-Lasum Bai was in possession of 6 acres and 16 guntas of land, which fell into her share as per the Will. In this background, the trial Court was right in holding that M. Rajanna made a fair distribution of his tangible assets amongst his legal heirs by executing the Will dated 24 th July, 1974 and so also the oral family settlement. We are of the view that the evidence available on record fortifies the existence and persuasive nature of the oral family settlement which is countenanced by the factum of the possession of the suit schedule properties including the disputed property, which was admittedly with the plaintiff- Lasum Bai and subsequently the purchaser i.e., Janardhan Reddy. 10. The genuineness of the Will is also beyond doubt because it not only confers the right and title over a part of the land owned by the Testator, M. Rajanna to the plaintiff-Lasum Bai, but it also grants a lion's share of the property to the defendant-Muthaiah. Had it been the intention of M. Rajanna to deprive the defendant-Muthaiah of the land or if the Will had been manipulated, then the defendant-Muthaiah could have been left out completely from gaining any benefits under the Will.” 17. The defendants relied on Exs.B.1 to B.11. Ex.B.1 is the copy of written statement filed by plaintiff in O.S.No.258 of 1978, Exs.B.2 to B.9 are certified copies of pahanies for the year 1984-85 to 1991-92, wherein, in pattedar and possessory column the name of Narsamma and Chennaiah and defendants 1 to 3 are recorded. Ex.B.10 is the true copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000 and Ex.B.11 is the family arrangement dated 02.06.1980 between plaintiff and defendants and Dw.2 is the scribe of Ex.B.11. Ex.B.10 is the true copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000 and Ex.B.11 is the family arrangement dated 02.06.1980 between plaintiff and defendants and Dw.2 is the scribe of Ex.B.11. Ex.B.11 is executed on a white paper in which it is stated that Narsamma is having Ac.22.36 guntas of land in the suit schedule lands towards her share and plaintiffs, defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to take half share each in her share. But the same was not filed in O.S.No.258 of 1978 for implementation and the suit was dismissed for default. As the Will deed was executed after execution of alleged Ex.B.11, in the year 1984, it cannot be said that Ex.B.11 comes to the aid of defendants. Further contention of the defendants is that there is no schedule of property mentioned in the Will deed, therefore, the same cannot be considered. Going through the said contention, the Will deed is executed by Narsamma for undivided joint family property stating that her share is to be given to the plaintiff’s family. When the property is undivided share of executants, there is no question of mentioning schedule of property in the Will deed. Therefore, there is no force in the said contention. It is also further submitted that stamp papers are purchased in the name of Pw.1, but he failed to identify the signatures of his father, whereas it is not a suspicious circumstance to disprove the Will. Will is a registered document and attestor was also examined by the plaintiffs and there are no such suspicious circumstances as alleged by the defendants, are proved to disbelieve the Will. Further the written statement filed by the defendants’ shows that they are relying on a MOU which was not acted upon. Further with regard to the Will deed, except stating that it is a fabricating document, no such suspicious circumstances was pleaded in the written statement. In view of the same, it can be said that appellants herein proved the Will deed. As such, the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled for the share of late Narsamma. Hence, the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, point Nos. (i) to (iii) are answered. 18. In view of the same, it can be said that appellants herein proved the Will deed. As such, the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled for the share of late Narsamma. Hence, the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, point Nos. (i) to (iii) are answered. 18. IN THE RESULT, the Appeal Suit is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2002 passed in O.S.No.465 of 1994 by the learned I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.