Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 107 (TS)

P. Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy v. G. Ranga Nayaki

2026-01-19

RENUKA YARA

body2026
JUDGMENT : RENUKA YARA, J. Heard Sri B. Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2/defendant No.3 and Sri G. Sreenath, learned counsel for respondent No.1/appellant/ defendant No.2, on the question of admission. Perused the record. 2. This Second Appeal is preferred aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 06.03.2025 in A.S.No.141 of 2019 passed by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short ‘the First Appellate Court”) setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 18.01.2018 in O.S.No.1349 of 2008 passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District (for short ‘the Trial Court’), wherein, the suit for partition and separate possession was dismissed i.e. vide judgment and decree in First Appeal, the suit has been decreed. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they are referred in the suit. 4. The background facts of the case are that one late P. Narasimha Chary was allotted with suit schedule property by State Bank of Hyderabad Employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Said late P. Narasimha Chary obtained loan for construction of house and paid some installments to defendant No.5 Bank. While things stood thus, on 04.05.1988, said late P. Narasimha Chary died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff (wife) and defendant Nos.1 to 4 (children) as his legal heirs. Defendant No.5 is State Bank of Hyderabad Employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., to which instalments were paid by the plaintiff. After the plaintiff cleared the loan, No Due Certificate was issued on 19.03.2008. Thereafter, defendant Nos.1 and 3 who are sons of the deceased late P. Narasimha Chary approached defendant No.5 to register the suit Schedule property in their names whereas the plaintiff who is mother of defendant Nos.1 to 4 requested for partition of the suit schedule property into five (5) equal shares. At that, defendant Nos.1 and 3 claimed exclusive rights to the suit schedule property. Further, according to the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 tried to alienate the suit schedule property to third parties by snatching original documents. 5. Per contra, the case of defendant Nos.1 and 3 (sons) is that partition was already effected through a oral Family Arrangement dated 11.08.2002 and the same was also reduced into writing. The suit schedule property was divided into three (3) equal shares with one (1) share each allotted to the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 3. 5. Per contra, the case of defendant Nos.1 and 3 (sons) is that partition was already effected through a oral Family Arrangement dated 11.08.2002 and the same was also reduced into writing. The suit schedule property was divided into three (3) equal shares with one (1) share each allotted to the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 3. No share was allotted to defendant Nos.2 and 4 (daughters) as the plaintiff agreed to part her share in equal halves to her daughters. Defendant Nos.2 and 4 (daughters) also agreed to such an arrangement to take half share each in their mother’s share and thereby, acknowledged Family Arrangement but did not sign the same. The loan amount was paid by the plaintiff from the death benefits of the deceased P. Narasimha Chary. The defendant Nos.1 and 3 never approached defendant No.5 for execution of sale deed as they have adhered to the Family Arrangement dated 11.08.2002. Further, allegation about trying to alienate the suit schedule property by snatching the title deeds is false. The plaintiff is in possession of her share and defendant Nos.1 and 3 are in possession of their respective shares. During pendency of suit, defendant No.1 died and defendant Nos.6 to 8 were brought on record as his legal heirs. 6. Defendant No.5 Bank filed written statement offering to register the suit schedule property as per judgment and decree in the suit. 7. During trial, the plaintiff got examined herself as PW1 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A4 consisting of legal heir certificate, electricity bills dated 05.10.2002 and 08.03.2003 and market value certificate. The defendants got examined DWs 1 to 3 and marked Ex.B1 Family Arrangement dated 11.08.2002. As per evidence on record, the plaintiff adhered to her version and plaint pleadings and the defendants have adhered to their version. In proof of Family Arrangement, DW2 and DW3 are examined who are brother-in-law and brother of the plaintiff. DW2 and DW3 acknowledged witnessing Family Arrangement as per Ex.B1 dated 11.08.2002. 8. On the basis of this oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court arrived at a conclusion that partition has already taken place and therefore, the same cannot be reopened and consequently, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant No.2 filed appeal in A.S.No.141 of 2019 before the First Appellate Court. 9. 8. On the basis of this oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court arrived at a conclusion that partition has already taken place and therefore, the same cannot be reopened and consequently, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant No.2 filed appeal in A.S.No.141 of 2019 before the First Appellate Court. 9. In appeal, after assessing the version presented by both the plaintiff and defendants coupled with oral evidence of DW2 and DW3, the First Appellate court also arrived at a conclusion that there was a Family Arrangement as per Ex.B1 dated 11.08.2002, however, said partition was found to be illegal. The First Appellate Court held that Family Arrangement/Ex.B1 to the exclusion of some of the Class-I legal heirs is illegal and therefore, allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 10. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, defendant No.3 filed the present Second Appeal alleging that the pleadings and evidence unequivocally established the Family settlement which is reduced into writing under Ex.B1 and it is in the knowledge of all the legal heirs of late P. Narasimha Chary. The defendant No.2 did not appear before the Trial Court and thereby, denying an opportunity to cross examine her on facts and documents and the finding with respect to Ex.B1 Family Arrangement. 11. In grounds of Second Appeal, it is contended that the First Appellate Court decreeing the suit with a direction to allot five (5) equal shares is contrary to law and evidence on record. The only reason for not considering Ex.B1 is that defendant Nos.2 and 4 have not signed Ex.B1. The appellant insisted that there was partition and the plaintiff has taken the entire benefits of the deceased late P. Narasimha Chary. Even DW2 and DW3 who are brother-in-law and brother of plaintiff have deposed about Family Arrangement and in spite of their evidence, the First Appellate Court has arrived at wrong findings. According to defendant No.3 i.e. appellant herein, the First Appellate Court ought to have remanded the matter instead of passing the erroneous decree such that the parties who failed to appear can contest the suit and would face cross examination. In that context, the following substantial questions of law are raised. According to defendant No.3 i.e. appellant herein, the First Appellate Court ought to have remanded the matter instead of passing the erroneous decree such that the parties who failed to appear can contest the suit and would face cross examination. In that context, the following substantial questions of law are raised. a) Whether the First Appellate Court is right in reversing the well considered judgment of the trial court, on the only ground that the defendant No.2 and 4 are not signatories to the Exhibit B1? b) Whether the First Appellate Court gravely erred in relying upon part of the evidence only i.e., the Exhibit B1 was not signed by the defendant Nos.2 and 4, and gravely erred in not considering the other evidence available on record i.e., evidence of DW2 who is brother-in-law of the plaintiff and DW3 who is the brother of the plaintiff, the witnesses to the family arrangement? c) Whether the First Appellate Court erred in not considering the fact that the defendant Nos.2 and 4 have already received substantially amounts at the time of their marriage and also from the plaintiff out of the amounts received by her towards the retiral benefits, death benefits, insurance and savings bonds of deceased Late P. Narasimha Chary, and that to avoid subjecting to trial/cross examination in the suit, the defendant Nos.2 and 4 have deliberately remained exparte to the suit? 12. The above entire sequence of the case of the plaintiff- mother on one hand the defendant Nos.1 and 3 (sons) undisputedly establishes the fact that it is late P. Narasimha Chary who was allotted with the suit schedule property. He paid some installments and died on 04.05.1988. Thereafter, his wife i.e. plaintiff paid installments and obtained No Due Certificate on 19.03.2008. Once the property belongs to late P. Narasimha Chary, his wife and all the four children would have 1/5th share each in the suit schedule property. 13. To the contrary, according to defendant No.3 i.e. the appellant herein and the deceased defendant No.1, the property is already partitioned in the year 2002 into three equal shares with one share each to two sons and wife of late P. Narasimha Chary. 13. To the contrary, according to defendant No.3 i.e. the appellant herein and the deceased defendant No.1, the property is already partitioned in the year 2002 into three equal shares with one share each to two sons and wife of late P. Narasimha Chary. The half share of the mother was to be further allotted into equal halves to the daughters i.e. there was prior partition but in unequal shares that too to the exclusion of the daughters i.e. defendant Nos.2 and 4. While there is sufficient evidence to prove Ex.B1 Family Arrangement and its execution, the question addressed by the First Appellate Court was whether such a Family Arrangement to the exclusion of daughters was valid in law. There was no issue about the factual aspect of the relationship between the parties, the manner of acquisition of suit schedule property and payment of loans thereon. The only factual dispute is with respect to the partition of the suit schedule property and its manner. The mother sought partition for division of suit schedule property into five equal shares whereas the sons are claiming prior partition into three shares. The Trial Court believed in prior partition but did not consider its validity whereas the First Appellate Court while believing the prior partition considered the legal validity of such a partition and came to a conclusion that any partition to the exclusion of daughters is not valid or legal. It is held that Ex.B1 Family Arrangement does not contain signature of daughters and their absence before the Trial Court does not mean that they have relinquished their share. Since the daughters are also Class-I legal heirs, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal. 14. During arguments in the Second Appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is an erroneous conclusion by the First Appellate Court with respect to Ex.B1 Family Arrangement dated 11.08.2002 that it is executed with consent of all the family members, to the knowledge of all the family members in the presence of the brother-in-law (DW2) and brother (DW3) the plaintiff. The only lacuna if any is that the signatures of defendant Nos.2 and 4 were not obtained. However, said Family Arrangement was also consented to by the daughters and therefore, reopening partition is not appropriate. 15. The only lacuna if any is that the signatures of defendant Nos.2 and 4 were not obtained. However, said Family Arrangement was also consented to by the daughters and therefore, reopening partition is not appropriate. 15. Under Section 100 of CPC, a Second Appeal is maintainable only when there are substantial questions of law to be considered by this Court. In the instant case, while there was no second opinion about the Family Arrangement/Ex.B1 dated 11.08.2002, the only point to be considered is whether it was valid or invalid as per law. The Trial Court failed to consider the same whereas the First Appellate Court has rightly held that any partition to the exclusion of daughters who are Class-I legal heirs is illegal. The stand about defendant No.2 who filed the First Appeal escaping cross examination is not a ground for entertain the Second Appeal. There was ample evidence on behalf of the plaintiff-mother and the defendant Nos.1 and 3-sons and DW2, DW3 who are family members. There can be no more facts elicited about the gamut of facts leading to filing of suit for partition. Unless and until there is a written document in proof of defendant Nos.2 and 4 relinquishing their rights accepting to take ½ share each from the share of plaintiff, there can be no question of giving weightage to Ex.B1 Family Arrangement. In the absence of such an evidence, the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is in conformity with the law as well as legal precedents laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in catena of judgments. 16. The substantial questions of law raised are questions of fact which were already considered by the First Appellate Court and this Court in a Second Appeal cannot venture into fact finding until there is perversity. There is no perversity in the finding given by the First Appellate Court and therefore, the Second Appeal is not maintainable 17. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.