Common Judgment:
1. The A.S. No.2802 of 1999 is filed by defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 17 against the Decree and common Judgment, dated 13.10.1999, passed in O.S. No.15 of 1981 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur. The Plaintiffs filed the Suit against the Defendants for seeking relief of partition of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and separate the possession of the plaintiffs ½ share therein and for costs of the suit.
2. The Tr.A.S.No.512 of 2005 is filed by plaintiffs in O.S.No.07 of 1981, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur. The appellants/plaintiffs filed the said suit i.e. O.S.No.07 of 1981, for seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants and their men from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession into the plaint schedule properties.
3. The trial Court after completion of full-fledged trial decreed the suit in O.S.No.15 of 1981 and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.07 of 1981, vide its common judgment dated 13.10.1999. Aggrieved against the decree and common judgment dated 13.10.1999 passed in O.S.No.15 of 1981 and O.S.No.07 of 1981, the unsuccessful defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 17 in O.S.No.15 of 1981 filed A.S. No.2802 of 1999 and the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.07 of 1981 filed Tr.A.S.No.512 of 2005.
4. Both the appeal and transfer appeal are filed against the common judgment dated 13.10.1999 passed in O.S.Nos.15 and 07 of 1981 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, both the appeals were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
5. The parties to the above two appeals are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.
6. The case of the plaintiffs in O.S. No.15 of 1981, in brief is as follows:
a. One Navuluri Pedda Ramaiah is the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff and he is the permanent resident of Sanampudi Village of Kandukuru Taluk, Ongole District. The plaintiffs pleaded that the said Navuluri Pedda Ramaiah, had extensive movable and immovable properties at Sanampudi Village, he had four sons namely 1) Venkata Ramanaiah, 2) Narasimhaiah, 3) Subbaiah and 4) Rangaiah ( the father of the plaintiff) and he had one daughter by name Pitchamma, who got married to Pamidipati Pitchaiah (the paternal grandfather of the defendant) of Vempadu Village, Kandukur Taluk. The plaintiffs pleaded that Navuluri Pedda Ramaiah sent his daughter to her husband’s family and hence Pamidipati Pitchamma and her husband Pamidipati Pitchaiah lived at Vempadu living a miserable life as they have absolutely no properties at all.
b. The plaintiffs pleaded that Navuluri Pedda Ramaiah and his four sons constituted a Hindu Joint family, which continued to live jointly enjoying all the family properties jointly, Navuluri Pedda Ramaiah died intestate at about 90 years back and all the joint family properties devolved upon his four sons and they continued to remain joint for some years enjoying the family properties jointly each of the four brothers having 1/4th share therein. Venkata Ramanaiah the eldest of the four brothers was managing the properties and the joint family of Venkata Ramanaiah, Subbaiah and Rangaiah owned Ac.2.67 cents of wet land in Sy.No.399, Ac.2.262 cents of dry land in Sy.No.270, Ac.2.98 cents of dry land in Sy.No.272, houses and sites in Item No.16, Ac.5.20 cents of dry land in Sy.No.237/3, Ac.1.10 cents in Sy.No.239/1, Ac.0.28½ cents of dry land in Sy.No.127/3, Ac.0.56 cents of dry land in Sy.No.237/5 and some other properties which they enjoyed jointly and Subbaiah was mentally retarded, he was unmarried and as such he lived under Rangaiah.
c. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the family became indebted to others by the year 1906 and as such, Venkata Ramanaiah and Rangaiah decided to execute a registered sale deed for portions of their family properties to their brother-in-law’s son Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah of Vempadu, nominally in order to keep the same beyond the reach of the creditors and Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah had no means at all to purchase properties and he was a penniless person. Therefore Navuluri Venkata Ramanaiah and Navuluri Rangaiah executed a registered sale deed on 08.07.1906 purpoting to sell away portions of family properties to Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah for a paltry sum of Rs.440/-, with colorable and make believe recitals. They further pleaded that since Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah was a resident of Vempadu by then, since the document was executed nominally and no possession was delivered to the vendee i.e. Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah under the registered sale deed dated 08.07.1906. Thereafter, Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah, in the year 1907, unable to take out his livelihood at Vempadu, left to Madras with his family consisting of himself, his wife, his father and lived on accompanying purohits going for obsequies, where he fell seriously ill and became almost dead.
d. The plaintiffs further pleaded that Pamidipati Pitchaiah has got one son by name Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah and two daughters by names Subbamma and Rukminamma, Subbamma was got married with Navuluri Venkata Subbaiah of Atmakuru and Rukminamma, who is the second daughter of Pamidipati Pitchaiah, got married to Navuluri Rangaiah, to whom the plaintiff herein is the son. While so, the wife of Pitchaiah died at Madras and in about the year 1908, Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah fall seriously ill at Madras and he was on the verge of death, hence, Rangaiah brought his father-in-law/pitchaiah and his brother-in-law/Chenchuramaiah and his wife to his house at Sanampudi and maintained them at his house with his properties.
They pleaded that the defendant No.1 was born to Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah, at about 70 years back at Sanampudi Village itself in the house of Navuluri Rangaiah, thereafter, Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah again insisted to leave Sanampudi Village to take out his livelihood. As such, Navuluri Rangaiah in about the 1910 requested his brother-in-law Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah to live with him at his house at Sanampudi and that he would gladly part with ½ share in his properties to Chenchuramaiah, thereafter, Navuluri Rangaiah died unmarried intestate and without adoption, his share of properties also devolved upon Navuluri Rangaiah and Navuluri Venkataramanaiah by survivorship and Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah also agreed to do so.
e. The plaintiffs further pleaded that thus in the year 1910, a family arrangement was entered into between Navuluri Rangaiah and Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah to the effect that both should enjoy the properties of Navuluri Rangaiah with equal shares and that both should live together as composite family members. Since then both lived together as composite family members and enjoyed the properties of Navuluri Rangaiah jointly each having ½ share therein. Thereafter, Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah, from out of the funds realized in the composite family lands started to purchase properties adding the same to the assets of composite family. As he was the manager who was controlling the family affairs, he obtained the registered sale deeds and other deeds in his name and Navuluri Rangaiah did not object for the same. In doing so he purchased Ac.0.38 cents of wet land in Sy.No.399 (part of item 1 and 2 of suit) Ac.1.25 cents of dry in Sy No.237/2 which is item No. 7 of the suit schedule, Ac.2.70 cents dry in Sy.No.237/4 (which is item & of the suit schedule, Ac.0.60 cents of dry in Sy.No.237/6 (which is in item 9 of the suit schedule) Ac.2.30 cents dry in Sy.No.237/3 (Part of item 10) Ac.1.85 cents dry in Sy.No.239/1 part of item 11, Ac.0.09 ½ cents dry in Sy.No.127/3 part of item 12 from Navuluri Laxmaiah, whose father Narasimhaiah (the divided elder brother of Rangaiah) was deceased by then under a registered sale deed dated 4.9.1912 and added the same to the family properties. In a similar manner he obtained an agreement of sale dated 10.4.1923 from Navuluri Gopalaiah the son of Venkataramaiah (the deceased eldest brother of Navuluri Rangaiah) in respect of western vacant site on the southern portion of item 16, Ac.0.37 cents dry in Sy.No.237/5 (part of item 14) Ac.0.41 cents of dry in Sy.No.237/3C (Item 13) and 19 cents in Sy.No.127/3 part of (item 12) for a sum of Rs. 440/- and added the same to the family properties.
f. While so, on 31.5.1929 Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah in a similar manner purchased western house portion and site on the south of item 16, under an agreement of sale from the same Navuluri Gopalaiah and added the same to the composite family corpus. In a similar manner he purchased item 4 of the suit schedule from Peravali Subbaiah under a registered sale deed dated 20.7.1933 and added the same to the composite family corpus. In a similar manner he purchased item 17 of the suit schedule from Mannam Narasimham under a registered sale deed dated 12.9.1936, and added the same to the corpus of the composite family. After the purchase of the house property in 1929 Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah shifted his aided school into the sale schedule houses on the southern portion of item No.16 of the composite family residing in the northern house portion of item No.16, and Navuluri Rangaiah used to cultivate all the lands owned by the composite family. Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah died intestate about 30 years ago living as the composite family members with the plaintiff, even after the death of Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah the family remained joint and the elder member i.e. the first defendant was managing all the joint family lands.
g. The plaintiffs further pleaded that with the joint family funds got from the lands/defendant No.1 purchased item No.3 of the plaint schedule from Alluri Eswaramma under a registered sale deed dated 29-7-1963 and added the same to the family corpus. In a similar manner he purchased item no.18 vacant site about 28 years ago from Golamudi Atchamma wife of Narasimha Reddy and in a similar manner he purchased item no.19 from others of Singarayakonda about 15 years back and added to the corpus. Thus the suit schedule properties are the jointly owned composite family properties of plaintiff and first defendant and each got a share therein and they lived together jointly till the year of 1975 and were registered as such in the voters list. As a matter of fact Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah has sold away Ac.0.68 cents wet land in Sy.No.399 to Gunju Ankaiah and Tenniru Chinnavedu in the year of 1926. Navuluri Gopalaiah son of Venkata Ramanaiah sold Ac.0.64 cents wet in Sy.No.399 to Vesili Papatah under a registered sale deed in 1926. They further pleaded that the defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the undivided sons of defendant No.1, the defendant No.6, is the wife of the defendant No.1 and is the daughter of Navuluri Pedda Ramaiah. In order to avoid all future family disputes, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 on 15.5.1976, entered into an agreement where under they agreed to divide all the family properties equally in future and they have became divided in status.
h. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the sons of defendant No.1 and are the necessary parties to the suit. The defendant No.6 is the wife of the defendant No.1 and is the daughter of Navuluri Laxmaiah who represents the second branch. The defendantNo.15 is the wife of Gopalaiah who is the son of Venkata Ramanaiah, who represents the first branch. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are in the joint possession through their lessees and hence, the suit is filed for partition of the joint family properties.
7. The case of the defendants in O.S.No.15 of 1981, and the plaintiff in O.S.No.07 of 1981, in brief is as follows:
a. One Navuluri Venkata Ramanaiah and Navuluri Rangaiah became heavily indebted and there were also decrees against them. For discharging their decree debt to Golla Basivisetty and also pronote debt payable to Pamidipati Pitchaiah, the paternal grandfather of this defendant, they sold item Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule to the father of defendant No.1 and they executed a registered sale deed on 8- 11-1906. Under the said sale deed they also sold another extent of Ac.0.82 cents out of a total extent of Ac.2.55 cents comprised in Survey No. 99. This defendant's father was duly put in possession of the properties covered by the said sale deed.
b. Thereafter, Navuluri Laxmaiah, son of Narasimhaiah aforesaid, who is the father in law of defendant No.1 sold item Nos.7 to 11 and Ac.0.38 cents out of survey No.399 corresponding to item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule and also an extent of Ac.9.9½ cents out of item No.12 of the plaint schedule to the defendant's father for a sum of Rs.188/- and he executed a registered sale deed on 04.09.1912 and delivered possession of the properties covered under the said sale deed to this defendant's father. Thereafter, the defendant's father purchased item No.4 of the plaint schedule from Peravali Subbaiah under a registered sale deed dated 20-7-1933. Subsequent to the death of his father, defendant No.1 purchased item No.8 of the plaint schedule from Alluri Eswaramma under a registered sale deed 29.7.1963. The defendant's father purchased items Nos.13, 14 and also undivided half share out of item No.12 of the plaint schedule from Navuluri Gopalaiah along with vacant site which forms part of item No.16 of the plaint schedule under an agreement of sale dated 10-4-1923. As per the agreement of sale the defendant's father was duly put in possession of the properties covered by the said agreement of sale. The defendant's father purchased house and vacant site from Velagapudi Chengaiah for a sum of Rs.40/- under an agreement of sale dated 31-5-1929, which constitutes parts of item No.16 of the plaint schedule. The property covered by the agreement of sale dated 1-5-1929 was purchased by Velagapudi Chengaiah from Navuluri Gopalaiah (husband of Ammanamma D.15) under a registered sale deed dated 24-8- 1926 the undivided extent of about 25 ankanams which constitutes a part of item No.16 and item No.17 of the plaint schedule was purchased by the defendant's father under an registered sale deed dated 12-9-1936 from Mannem Narasimham. Subsequent thereto, the defendant's father Chenchuramaiah effected partition with Sudi Venkata Subbaiah and towards his share he got item No.17 of the plaint schedule and eastern portion of item No.16. The defendant's father encroached upon an extent of Ac.0.46 cents comprised in item No.15 of the plaint schedule and subsequently he was also granted patta. Thus, except item No.3 of the plaint schedule, the rest of the plaint schedule properties have been purchased by the defendant's father. Thereafter, insofar as item No.18 of the plaint schedule is concerned, the vacant site comprised in the said item was purchased by defendant No.1 from one G.Atchamma under a registered sale deed dated 27-11-1950. The defendant's mother Ramalakshmamma died when defendant No.1 was very young and his father died in about in the year 1952. Defendant No.1 is the only son of his parents and upon his father's death, defendant No.1 became entitled to all the properties in the plaint schedule and defendant No.1 has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties paying cist to the Government.
c. The defendants further pleaded that even during the life time of his father Chenchuramaiah, the father of the plaintiff became heavily indebted and was not a in a position to maintain his family. Defendant No.1 and his sons, viz. defendant Nos.2 to 5, constitute as members of Hindu joint family and the plaint schedule properties belong to their joint family and the plaintiff has nothing to do with the same. They further pleaded that the plaintiff and his sons got envious about the defendant's family possessing substantial properties and also the decent positions that were being occupied by the children of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff and his sons began to pick up unnecessary quarrels with defendant No.1 on some pretext or other. The plaintiff and his sons have large following in the village and defendant No.1 was unable to resist the high handed interference of the plaintiff and his sons with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties by the defendant. Therefore, defendants filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff and his sons in O.S. No. 7 of 1981, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kandukur.
d. Defendant No.1 further pleaded that the plaintiff has no manner of right in respect of the plaint schedule properties which exclusively belong to defendant No.1 and there was neither a composite family nor a joint family between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 or the purchasers of the plaintiff and the defendant, just because the plaintiff and defendant No.1 lived together for some time, the same does not convey the plaintiff with any right in respect of any of the plaint schedule properties and it is absolutely false to state that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 entered in family arrangement to avoid future disputes on 15-5-1976 or any other date. Defendant No.1 further pleaded that the document filed along with the plaint is a rank forgery brought into existence with the aid of the partisans of the plaintiff and the scribe of the agreement is the co-brother of the plaintiff. As such, they requested to dismiss the suit with costs.
Defendant No.1 filed additional written statement and the brief averments are as follows:
Defendant No.1 recollected the past events and he remembered that in the suit filed by one Kantam Raju Lakshmikantham against Madala Subba Rao and 40 others in O.S No. 307 of 1973, on the file of the Principal District Munsiff Court, Kandukur, defendant No.1 herein was shown as defendant No.13 and the contested the same, and engaged Sri P.V. Balakrishnamurthy as his Advocate in that suit. The co brother of the plaintiff i.e. Singampalli Narayanaiah was working as Pleader's clerk under P.V. Balakrishnamurthy then and to file the written statement, defendant No.1 gave two blank white papers containing his two signatures on each of the paper to file his written statement and counters concerned in the said case into the court. Therefore, defendant No.1 pleaded that he did not execute any family arrangement either on 15-5-1976 or on any other date, but under the circumstances stated above, the plaintiff must have used the blank white papers containing the signature of defendant No.1 for this purpose. As such, he requested to dismiss the suit with costs.
8. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by the trial Court in O.S. No.15 of 1981:
1. Whether the sale deed dated 08.07.1906 Ex.B-54, which purports to have been executed by the late Navuluri Venkataramanaih and the late Navuluri Rangaiaha in favour of the late Pamidipati Chenchuramiah is nominal and whether vendee therein had no solvency by that date?
2. Whether the oral arrangement leading to the formation of the composite family in 1910 as pleaded by the plaintiff is true and valid? If so, whether the plaint schedule items other than items 1, 2, 5 and 6 were purchased in the name of defendant No.1 pursuant to that arrangement and for the common benefit of the composite family?
3. Whether the suit agreement dated 15.05.1976 is true and valid?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of partition as sought by him?
5. Whether the C.F. paid by the plaintiff on his plaint is not sufficient? and
6. To what relief
The trial Court has framed the following issues in O.S.No.07 of 1981:
1. Whether the plaintiff was in actual possession of items 1 to 17 of the plaint schedule on the date of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction sought by him? and
3. To what relief?
9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, P.W.1 to P.W.7 were examined and Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants D.W.1 to D.W.6 were examined and Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-135 were marked and further Ex.X-1 to Ex.X-25 were marked.
10. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit in O.S. No.15 of 1981, declaring the plaintiffs are entitled to half share in the plaint schedule properties and separate possession as prayed for but the suit in O.S. No.07 of 1981, filed for the relief of permanent injunction is dismissed, vide its common judgment, dated 13.10.1999, against which A.S.No.2802 of 1999 is preferred by defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 17 in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court. The plaintiffs in O.S. No.07 of 1981 filed Tr.A.S.No.512 of 2005 insofar as rejecting the relief of permanent injunction is concerned.
11. Heard Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Thanjavuru Venkata Suman, learned counsel for appellants and Smt. K.Sesharajyam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms. V.Hima Bindu, learned senior counsel for the respondents.
12. Now the points for determination in both these appeals are as follows:
1. Whether there is a composite family in between the father of the plaintiff and the father of defendant No.1 and thereafter, in between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as pleaded by the pliaintiff in O.S.No.15 of 1981 and the defendants In O.S.No.07 of 1981, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kandukur?
2. Whether the contents of Ex.X-1 are proved, does it binds defendant No.1Nos.2 to 6 and 17 in O.S.No15 of 1981 and the plaintiffs in O.S.No.07 of 1981, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kandukur?
3. Whether the plaintiffs in O.S.No.15 of 1981, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, are entitled to the relief of partition as sought in the plaint?
4. Whether the plaintiffs in O.S.No.07 of 1981, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kandukur, are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed in the plaint in O.S.No.07 of 1981?
5. Whether the decree and common judgment passed in O.S.No.15 of 1981 and O.S.No.07 of 1981, by the trial Court needs any interference?
13. POINT Nos.1 and 2:-
1. Whether there is a composite family in between the father of the plaintiff and the father of defendant No.1 and thereafter, in between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as pleaded by the pliaintiff in O.S.No.15 of 1981 and the defendants In O.S.No.07 of 1981, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kandukur?
2. Whether the contents of Ex.X-1 are proved, does it binds defendant No.1Nos.2 to 6 and 17 in O.S.No15 of 1981 and the plaintiffs in O.S.No.07 of 1981, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kandukur?
The sole plaintiff Navuluri Rama Rao filed a suit in O.S.No.15 of 1981, against the defendants for seeking relief of partition of the plaint schedule property, during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.15 of 1981, the sole- plaintiff Navuluri Rama Rao, S/o. Rangaiah, died and his Legal Representatives are brought on record as plaintiff Nos.2 to 9 in O.S.No.15 of 1981. One Navuluri Pedda Ramaiah is the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff and one Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah is the father of defendant No.1 and the said Chenchuramaiah is none other than the brother-in-law of the father of the plaintiff. The relationship in between both the parties is not in dispute.
14. The plaintiff further contend that his father Rangaiah and his father’s brother Venkata Ramaiah, indebted to others by the year 1986 and they have executed a registered sale deed on 08.07.1906, for portions of their family property to their brother-in-law/Chenchuramaiah i.e. the father of defendant No.1 of Vempadu village, nominally in order to keep the same beyond the reach of the creditors. Defendant No.1 contended that, his father purchased Item Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 of the schedule property from Navuluri Ramaiah and Venkata Ramanaiah by way of registered sale deed dated 08.07.1906 under Ex.B-54. The recitals in the said sale deed shows that it is not a nominal sale deed, moreover, the original registered sale deed is filed by the defendants and got exhibited as Ex.B-54, which relates to the year 1906. The execution of Ex.B-54 registered sale deed dated 08.07.1906, by the vendors is not at all disputed by the plaintiff, therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove that the said sale deed is a nominal sale deed, but the plaintiff failed to prove the same. In the absence of any such evidence produced by the plaintiff herein, the said property is treated as a absolute property of Chenchuramaiah i.e. the father of defendant No.1. It was contended by the plaintiff that the said Chenchuramaiah has no means at all to purchase the properties and he was a penniless person and that his father and his father’s brother executed a registered sale deed on 08.07.1906, purporting to sell away the family properties to Chenchuramaiah/ the father of defendant No.1 for a paltry sum of Rs.440/-. The said contention of the plaintiff that the amount of Rs.440/- is a paltry amount in those days i.e. in the year 1906, is baseless. In those days i..e in the year 1906, a way back for about more than 119 years ago, it is a huge amount and also a substantial amount. It was admitted by the plaintiff/P.W.2 in his evidence itself that the father of defendant No.1/Chenchuramaiah studied old Metric in the year 1983 and the said Chenchuramaiah used to run an elementary school at Sanampudi village and it is a single teacher aided elementary school. Therefore, the very contention of the plaintiff that Chenchuramaiah has no means to purchase the properties and he is a penniless person is nothing but false and there is no basis. Moreover, the plaintiff/Navuluri Rama Rao herein failed to prove that Chenchuramaiah has no means to purchase the said properties and he is a penniless person.
15. Another contention taken by the plaintiff is that his father and his father’s brother never delivered the possession under Ex.B-54 in the year 1906 and the possession is with the father of the plaintiff and the brother of the father of the plaintiff viz. Navuluri Rangaiah and his brother Venkata Ramanaiah. In order to prove the same no oral or documentary evidence is produced by the plaintiff. On the other hand defendant No.1 filed a voluminous of documentary evidence namely viz. ‘Cist Receipts’ under
Ex.B-63 to Ex.B-119, to show their possession in the plaint schedule properties and also got filed a documentary evidence to show that his name was registered in the revenue records of rights at Sanamupudi Village and the Government also issued notices before the enhancement of land revenue under Ex.B-120, Ex.B-121 and Ex.B-122. Moreover, the plaintiff was born in the year 1924; therefore, he is not having any personal knowledge about Ex.B-54 sale deed, which relates to the year 1906. The vendors of the sale deed under Ex.B-54 dated 08.07.1906, have not taken any steps to cancel the said sale deed Ex.B-54. Therefore, the said sale deed is a valid and it is more than hundred (100) years old document, therefore the father of defendant No.1 was having absolute right and title in Ex.B-54 property and the father of defendant No.1 by name Chenchuramaiah died in the year 1952 by leaving his son/defendant No.1 herein, and prior to the death of the father of defendant No.1, the mother of defendant No.1 by name Ramalakshmamma died when he was young and therefore, defendant No.1 and his children are having absolute rights and ownership over Ex.B-54 property i.e. Item Nos.1, 2 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule property and defendant No.1 used to enjoy the same exclusively by paying land revenue to the Government and he is exclusive possession and enjoyment and his name is mutated in the Revenue Records and his name is also entered in the Record of Rights Register.
16. It was further contended by the plaintiff that in the year 1907 Navuluri Venkata Ramanaiah has one branch and Navuluri Rangaiah has second branch, affected the partition of all the family properties including the sale deed property dated 08.07.1906. In order to prove the same, no oral or documentary evidence is produced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff himself admitted in his evidence in cross-examination itself that he was born in the year 1924 and therefore, he is not having any personal knowledge about the events which are happened prior to 1924.
17. The plaintiff contended in the plaint that in the year 1910 a family arrangement was entered in between Navuluri Rangaiah and Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah i.e. the father of defendant No.1 to the effect that both should enjoy the properties of Navuluri Rangaiah with equal shares and that both should live together as composite family members. The plaintiff further pleaded that since then, both lived together as a composite family member and enjoyed the properties of Navuluri Rangaiah jointly each having half share therein. Admittedly, no oral or documentary evidence is produced by the plaintiff in order to prove the same. Even as per the own case of the plaintiff, he was born in the year 1924 and therefore, he is not having any personal knowledge about the events which were happened prior to 1924. Moreover, the plaintiff himself admits in his evidence in cross-examination that no arrangement had taken place in between his father and himself and anybody. Therefore, the aforesaid own admission of the plaintiff clinchingly establishes that there is no family arrangement in the year 1910, as pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint in O.S.No.15 of 1981.
18. The plaintiff in O.S.No.15 of 1981 contended that Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah, from out of the funds realized in the composite family funds started to purchase the property and he purchased Ac.38.00 cents of wet land in Sy.No.399, Ac.1.25 cents of dry land in Sy.No.237/2, which is the item No.7 of the schedule property, Ac.2.70 cents of dry land in Sy.No.237/4, which is the item No.8 of the suit schedule property, Ac.60.00 cents in Sy.No.237/6, which is the item No.9 of the schedule property, Ac.2.30 cents of dry land in Sy.237/3 (part of Item No.10 of the schedule property) Ac.1.85 cents of dry land in Sy.No.239/1 (part of Item No.11 of the plaint schedule property) and Ac.0.091/2 cents of dry land in Sy.No.127/3 ( part of the Item No.12 of the plaint schedule property) from Navuluri Laxmaiah, under a registered sale deed dated 04.09.1912.
19. The plaintiff in O.S.No.15 of 1981 further pleaded that similarly Chenchuramaiah obtained an agreement of sale deed 10.04.1923, from Navuluri Gopalaiah, in respect of the property covered in Item No.16 of the plaint schedule and also Item No.13 of the plaint schedule properties. As stated supra, the plaintiff was born in the year 1924, even as per the own admissions of the plaintiff, he is not having personal knowledge about the events happened prior to 1924. Admittedly, no such evidence is produced by the plaintiff before the trial Court that Chenchuramaiah, purchased the said properties from out of the funds realized in the composite family lands as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint.
20. The plaintiff further pleaded that on 31.05.1929, Pamidipati Chenchuramaiah, purchased western house portion and site in the south of Item No.16, under an agreement of sale from Navuluri Gopalaiah and added the same to the composite family corpus and he also purchased Item No.4 of the suit schedule property from Peravali Subbaiah, under a registered sale deed dated 20.07.1933 and in a similar manner he purchased Item No.17 of the suit schedule property from Mannam Narasimham, under a registered sale deed dated 12.09.1936. In order to prove the same, no oral or documentary evidence is produced by the plaintiff. Even, as per the own case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was born in the year 1924 and he was younger in the years 1929, 1933 and 1936 respectively, therefore, he was not having personal knowledge about the said transactions. Moreover, for all the aforesaid sale transactions, original registered sale deeds are filed by the defendants and got exhibited as exhibits before the trial Court.
21. In the case at hand, admittedly, there is no evidence on record to show from out of the funds realized in the composite family lands, Chenchuramaiah purchased the properties under the registered sale deeds as stated supra. Moreover, there is a voluminous of documentary evidence to show that the defendants used to pay Cist to Revenue Department in respect of all the aforesaid properties. All the original registered sale deeds are marked as Exhibits i.e. Ex.B-54, Ex.B-55, Ex.B-56, Ex.B-57, Ex.B-59, Ex.B-61, Ex.B-62 respectively. The defendant No.1 also relied on Cist receipts under Ex.B-63 to Ex.B-119. In the case at hand, the defendant No.1 relied on documentary evidence in Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-135. On the other hand, the plaintiff relied on Ex.A-1 certified copy of the sale deed executed by Navuluri Gopalaiah in favour of Chigurupati Laxmaiah and Ex.A-2 voter list of Sanampudi Village. Except the aforesaid two documents, no other documentary evidence is produced by the plaintiff.
22. The material on record goes to show that in the plaint itself the plaintiff pleaded that Chenchuramaiah died in or about thirty (30) years ago i.e. prior to filing of the suit and after the death of Chenchuramaiah, the family remained joint and the elder member/defendant No.1 was managing all the joint family lands and defendant No.1 also purchased some of the properties. The aforesaid contention as taken by the plaintiff is seriously denied by the defendants. Therefore, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the same, but he failed to prove the same. The plaintiff also failed to prove that from out the composite family funds, Chenchuramaiah purchased the same and after his death, his son/defendant No.1 also purchased some of the properties from out of the composite family funds. It is the admitted case of the plaintiff that the father of defendant No.1 worked as an aided school teacher and used to run a school and defendant No.1 also used to work as a teacher in an aided school. It was admitted by the plaintiff in his evidence that defendant No.1 also purchased some of the lands at Singarayakonda and Sanampudi Villages.
23. As seen from the evidence of the plaintiff/P.W.2, the plaintiff admits that his father and Venkata Ramanaiah are no more and the father of defendant No.1 purchased the properties and part of Item Nos.16 and 17 under a registered sale deed and defendant No.1 also purchased a vacant site from Golamudi Atchamma under a registered sale deed dated 27.11.1950. He also admits that defendant No.1 sold the site in favour of one Kunchala Kondamma, who is defendant No.14 in O.S.No.79 of 1971. He further admits that the father of defendant No.1 and later defendant No.1 have been paying the Cist for all the lands including the above items of the property and defendant No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.07 of 1981 against the plaintiff and his sons, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kandukur. He further admits that he was born in the year 1924, and he gave instructions to his Advocate for drafting the plaint and he does not know that his father has no landed properties in his name by the year 1910, and no arrangement had been taken place between his father and himself and anybody, he does not know anything about any such arrangement by the year 1910. The material on record clearly reveals that the father of defendant No.1 purchased most of the plaint schedule properties under registered sale deeds, which were evidenced by the registered sale deeds and got them exhibited before the trial Court and the remaining plaint schedule properties were purchased by defendant No.1 under registered sale deeds and all the aforesaid registered sale deeds are more than fifty (50) years old documents. In the plaint itself it was narrated by the plaintiff about the purchase of the property by the plaintiff under registered sale deeds, much prior to filing of the suit i.e. more than fifty (50) years old documents. But the contention of the plaintiff is that from out of composite family funds, the father of defendant No.1 and after the death of the father of defendant No.1, defendant No.1 purchased the said properties from out of the composite family funds. Admittedly, no oral or documentary evidence was produced by the plaintiff in order to prove the same. None of the villagers were examined by the plaintiff to prove about the alleged composite family in between the plaintiff and the defendant.
24. The plaintiff relied on Ex.X-1 alleged agreement dated 15.05.1976, said to have been executed in between plaintiff and defendant No.1, the same was marked through P.W.1./Purushotham Kasyap, who is the handwriting and the finger print expert. Defendant No.1 is not disputing the signatures on Ex.X-1. Defendant No.1 contended in the additional written statement that he recollected the past events and he remembered that in the suit filed by the Kantam Raju Lakshmikantham against Madala Subba Rao and 40 others in O.S.No.307 of 1973, on the file of the Principal District Munsiff Court, Kandukur, he was shown as defendant No.13 and contested the same and engaged Sri P.V.Balakrishnamurthy as his Advocate in that suit. He further pleaded that the co-brother of the plaintiff by name Singampally Narayanaiah, who was working as a pleader’s clerk under P.V.Balakrishnamurthy then and to file a written statement, he has given two blank white papers containing his two signatures on each page of the paper to file his written statement and counters concerned in the said case into the Court.
25. In order to prove Ex.X-1 alleged agreement, the plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5. The plaintiff/P.W.2 admitted that Ex.X-1 was drafted at the veranda of the joint house of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. P.W.3, who is the co-brother of the plaintiff, stated in his chief examination that he wrote the Ex.X-1 agreement on the veranda of the house of the plaintiff and Defendant No.1. P.W.3, who is one of the attestor in Ex.X-1 admits in his evidence in cross-examination that Ex.X-1 was not written in the house of defendant No.1 now residing with his family. He further admits that the scribe of Ex.X-1 is the co-brother of the plaintiff and there were no disputes between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 by the date of Ex.X-1. P.W.5, who is another attestor to Ex.X-1, admits that at the time of Ex.X-1, it was agreed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 that they can partition the properties within a period of four (04) or five (05) months thereafter and he does not know whether they have affected the partition amicably or not. He further admits that so also he do not know personally whether the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are enjoying their properties separately after partition.
26. The law is well settled that “mere admission of signature in the Ex.X-1 is not a conclusive proof of Ex.X-1. Even Ex.X-1 is taken into consideration; the title in the property is not passed under Ex.X-1.” The schedule of the property and survey number of the properties is not even mentioned in Ex.X-1. In Ex.X-1, it was recited that the father of the plaintiff and the father of defendant No.1 made a family arrangement, about seventy five (75) years ago i.e. prior to 1976, and both the them lived as composite family. Admittedly, the plaintiff admitted in his evidence in cross-examination itself that no arrangement had been taken place between his father and himself and anybody and he does not know anything about any such arrangement by the year 1910. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that his father and the father of defendant No.1 made family arrangement at about seventy five (75) years ago prior to 1976, is not at proved by the own evidence of the plaintiff. Moreover, it was recited in the Ex.X-1 that to avoid future disputes they are agreed to divide equal shares in the properties and they intend to partition the properties. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Ex.X-1 is an inadmissible document and placed reliance on a judgment in R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P.Temple and Another((2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 752).
27. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on a judgment in R.Venkataramana Reddy Vs. R.Radha Krishna Reddy and Others (2019 SCC OnLine AP 216) . Learned counsel for the respondents placed another reliance on a judgment of Four (04) Judge Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in Javer Chand and Ors., Vs. Pukhraj Surana(AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1655), wherein the Apex Court held as follows:
“Where a question as to the admissibility of a document is raised on the ground that it has not been stamped, or has not been properly stamped, the party challenging the admissibility of the document has to be alert to see that the document is not admitted in evidence by the Court. The Court has to judicially determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case. Once a document has been marked as an exhibit in the case and the trial has proceeded all along on the footing that the document was an exhibit in the case and has been used by the parties in examination and cross-examination of their witnesses, S.36 comes into operation. Once a document has been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it is not open either to the Trial Court itself or to a Court of Appeal or Revision to go behind that order. Such an order is not one of those judicial orders which are liable to be reviewed or revised by the same Court or a Court of superior jurisdiction.”
28. In the case at hand, Ex.X-1 is not a document of title; the recitals in Ex.X-1 are the plaintiff and defendant No.1 agreed to partition the properties. Here the ownership of the plaint schedule properties are vested with defendant No.1 and his father under a registered sale deeds, much prior to fifty (50) years of institution of suit for partition. The contention of the plaintiff herein that Ex.B-54 relates to the year 1906 is a nominal sale deed, is not at all proved by the plaintiff. Admittedly, no property was divided through Ex.X-1 document, the recitals in Ex.X-1 are both the parties mutually understood to partition the properties. In my view “a written agreement to partition the properties in future is unknown to law”. As stated supra, the title cannot be passed under Ex.X-1; the plaintiff is not a joint owner or a coparcener and there was voluminous of documentary evidence on behalf of the defendants under Ex.B-1 to B-135 to show that the schedule properties are in exclusive possession of defendant No.1. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence produced by the plaintiff, it cannot be presumed that the father of the plaintiff and the father of defendant No.1 lived together as a composite family and after their death, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 lived as composite family members.
29. The learned trial Judge held in its judgment that as per the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence of D.W.1, it is significant to note that the plaint schedule properties are purchased by Chenchuramaiah and thereafter D.W.1. The learned trial Judge further held in its judgment that there is no material on record to disbelieve the evidence of D.W.1 and the father of D.W.1 or D.W.1. had no capacity to purchase the landed property. The trial Court further held in its judgment that defendant No.1proved from the evidence of P.W.2 and D.W.1 that Chenchuramaiah worked as a teacher by running a school by himself and so with the income of his salary and from the lands, Chenchuramaiah purchased the properties and the trial Court further held that no evidence was produced on record by both sides as to whether there is any oral agreement between Navuluri Rangaiah and Chenchuramaiah, with regard to the oral agreement leading to the formation of the composite family. The trial Court by holding that decreed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the said finding of the learned trial Judge for decreeing the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property is nothing but perversive finding. The learned trial Judge came to a conclusion that since the plaintiff and defendant No.1 lived together, therefore, both of them lived as a composite family. The said finding is also nothing but a perversive finding.
30. In a case of Kakarla Subbayya and others Vs. Makkena Sitaramamma and another(1957 SCC OnLine AP 342), the Apex Court held as follows:
“31. In the absence of an express agreement, the formation of a composite family cannot ordinarily be inferred from the mere circumstances of two different families living together and cultivating jointly, unless the conduct and mutual relations of the component units arc wholly incompatible with the preservation of their individuality.”
In the case at hand also in the plaint it was pleaded that there was a family arrangement by the year 1910, but the plaintiff himself admitted in his evidence that there is no such family arrangement in between his father and the father of defendant No.1 and himself and defendant No.1.
31. In the aforesaid case law, the Apex Court further held as follows:
“32. A long duration, say, the passing of a few ge nerations of common living may, in itself, raise a presumption of merger sometimes. But in this case jointness lusted hardly for 2 decades. It was confined to the period between the partition in the Makkena family in 1918 and the death of Kotiah in 1938. We have no precise evidence as to the year in which Kotiah and his mother came into the Kakarla family. Even if it were in 1918, the stay with the Kakarlas was not for more than 20 years.
33. There is not even the indication that Kotiah participated in joint cultivation of the lands. We have the definite statement of the 2nd defendant that he was merely grazing cattle and cutting grass. The lands were being managed by the Kakarlas themselves. Kotiah's lands (C schedule) were managed by them on his behalf just as Seshnmma's (7th defendant's) D schedule lands were cultivated on her behalf. Again, a continuous course of dealings with the properties of the quondam units for the common benefit of the family, or acquisitions jointly in the names of all the members of a common bend and the launching of joint ventures, of the shouldering of common risks and the utilisation of the resources of the units indiscriminately for the purpose of the whole family would be some of the indicia of a merger.
34. In the present case no doubt jointness of cultivation of the lands of the Kakarla and Makkena families and a common enjoyment of the income may easily be presumed. But this circumstance is attributable to the fact of a joint living of the two families and can signify nothing more.
35. It is the dealing with the corpus which gives us a clue to the real intention of the parties and we have not been shown any instance where Kotiah alienated or otherwise dealt with the properties of the Kakarlas or vice very in a manner calculated to prove that both the units deemed it immaterial as to which of the properties and whose properties were actually alienated and the purpose for which that was done.”
32. In the case at hand, no single document is filed by the plaintiff to show that there was a family arrangement in between his father and the father of defendant No.1 in the year 1910, moreover, the plaintiff admits that some of the property was alienated to the father of defendant No.1 on 08.07.1906, a way back for more than hundred (100) years ago, but the said sale deed was not challenged by the father of the plaintiff or by the plaintiff till so far. The plaintiff simply contended that Ex.B-54 sale deed is a nominal one, but the same is not proved by the plaintiff. Moreover, all the other registered sale deeds are old documents viz. more than fifty (50) years ago and all the original registered sale deeds are filed by defendant No.1.
33. In a case of Angalakurthy Venkata Narayanamma and others Vs. Molakapalli Lakshmamma and others(2015 SCC OnLine 783), the Apex Court held as follows:
“22. The concept of composite family is almost foreign to Hindu law, but such concept is developed due to custom prevailing in a particular community or due to express or implied contract between the parties to form a composite family. Composite family means where two or more families agreed to live and work together, pool their resources, throw their gains and labour into the joint stock, shoulder the common risk, utilize the resources of the units indiscriminately for the purpose of the whole family, such a case may be within the ambit of composite family, provided that there is a custom of such merger known to those families. A composite family is indeed constituted with the same purpose.
25. In another Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kakarla Subbayya and others Vs. Makkena Sitaramamma and another (17) (1958) 2 An.W.R.59-AIR 1959 AP 86, it is ruled as follows:
“In the absence of an express agreement, the formation of a composite family cannot ordinarily be inferred from the mere circumstances of two different families living together and cultivating jointly, unless the conduct and mutual relations of the component units are wholly incompatible with the preservation of their individuality.
A long duration, say, the passing of a few generations of common living may, in itself, raise a presumption of merger sometimes.”
34. In the case at hand, the alleged composite family in between the father of the plaintiff and the father of defendant No.1 as pleaded by the plaintiff is not even proved by the plaintiff. Even though the plaintiff examined the scribe of Ex.X-1 as P.W.3, who is aged about sixty (60) years and he is none other than the co-brother of the plaintiff, he also did not depose in his evidence about the existence of alleged composite family in between the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and thereafter, in between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Moreover, the plaintiff did not venture to examine the villagers to prove the alleged composite family in between his father and the father of defendant No.1 and after the death of their father the same is continued in between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. Moreover, Ex.X-1 is not a conclusive proof that there was a composite family in between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are not the coparceners and they are not the joint family members. Defendant No.1 is none other than the son of the brother-in-law of the father of the plaintiff. There is an ample evidence to show the name of defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule properties is entered in the Records of Rights of Revenue Department at Sanampudi Village. Ex.B-120. Ex.B-121 and Ex.B-122 goes to show that the Government also issued a notice to the appellant for enhancement of land revenue in respect of the schedule property.
35. Defendant No.1/D.W.1 deposed in his evidence that he is defendant No.1 in the suit filed by his nephew, defendant Nos.2 to 5 are his sons and defendant No.6 is his wife. He further deposed that he is the plaintiff in O.S.No.07 of 1981, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kandukur, and his father stayed at Madras and he studied Matriculation at St. Mary’s College, at Madras, and during the lifetime of Navuluri Rangaiah, he used to execute pronotes in favour of others and Ex.B-1 contains the signature of Navuluri Rangaiah, Ex.B-2 another pronote also contains the signature of Navuluri Rangaiah and the attestors of Ex.B-1 and Ex.B-2 are no more. He further admits that the endorsements on the pronotes Ex.B-3 to Ex.B-5 contain the signature of the Navuluri Rangaiah and he can identify it and Ex.B-4 and Ex.B-5 were written by his father. He further admits that his father died in the year 1952 and he was managing the properties of their family situated at Vempadu Village and giving lease to others and after the demise of his father he became the manager of his family and defendant Nos.2 to 5 are his sons, Ex.B-30 and Ex.B-31 shows that his father acquired lands at Atmakur and his father also used to lend money during his lifetime. He further admits that Navuluri people used to contract debts from his father and also from his grandfather and they executed the pronotes in their favour. Ex.B-54 is the registered sale deed executed by Navuluri Venkata Ramanaiah and Rangaiah in favour of his father and Navuluri Laxamaiah also sold his land in favour of his under a registered sale deed dated 04.09.1912, under Ex.B-55 and the schedule of the same corresponds to Item Nos.7 to 11 of the plaint schedule and Ex.B-4 corresponds to Item Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule property. He further admits that after the purchase of the aforesaid properties all the said properties are in possession of his father and after his death he used to deal with the same. He also purchased Item No.8 of the schedule property from Alluri Eswaramma, for Rs.200/-, under Ex.B-57 registered sale deed and his father also purchased Item No.4 of the schedule property from Peravali Subbaiah, under Ex.B-54 registered sale deed dated 20.07.1933. He further deposed that his father purchased most of the schedule properties during his lifetime under the registered sale deeds a way back for more than fifty (50) years ago prior to the institution of the suit and he also purchased some of the plaint schedule properties under registered sale deeds and the original registered sale deeds were filed and marked as exhibits before the trial Court.
36. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent placed another reliance on a judgment in R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P.Temple and Another (AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4548).
The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law is applicable to the second appeal proceedings filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but not to the first appeals filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
37. In the case at hand, even as per the own case of the plaintiff his father and his father’s brother executed a registered sale deed a way back in the year 1906 under Ex.B-54 in respect of Item No.1, 2, 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule property in favour of the father of defendant No.1. Though the plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that the father of defendant No.1 by name Chenchuramaiah was a penniless person and he has no means to purchase a property in the year 1906, admittedly, no evidence was produced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was born in the year 1924. Therefore, he is not having any personal knowledge about the events which were happened prior to 1924. Even as per the own case of the plaintiff, Chenchuramaiah worked as an aided school teacher and used to run a school and he was well educated. Moreover, the said sale deed relates to the year 1906, more than hundred (100) years old document, which was not challenged by the father of the plaintiff. There is no evidence on record to show that the father of the plaintiff and the father of defendant No.1 lived together as a composite family. Though the plaintiff examined the scribe of Ex.X-1 as P.W.3, who is none other than the co-brother of the plaintiff, aged about 60 years, there is no whisper in the evidence of P.W.3 about the existence of alleged composite family in between the father of the plaintiff and the father of defendant No.1 and thereafter, in between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. He admits that he is not having any personal knowledge about the truth of the contents of Ex.X-1.
38. The evidence of the plaintiff and the recitals in the plaint itself clearly goes to show that the father of defendant No.1 purchased some of the plaint schedule properties under a old registered sale deeds a way back more than fifty (50) years ago and subsequent to the death of the father of defendant No.1, defendant No.1 purchased the remaining plaint schedule properties under registered sale deeds, which were evidenced by the documentary evidence produced by the defendants. Defendant No.1 produced voluminous documentary evidence to show that after purchase of the property, they used to pay Cist for all the properties to the Government. To prove the same, defendant No.1 had filed Cist Receipts under Ex.B-63 to Ex.B-119. All the aforesaid original Cist receipts filed by defendant No.1 clinchingly establishes that they paid land revenue to the Government in respect of the plaint schedule property.
39. There is no evidence on record to show that from out of the funds realized in the composite family as alleged by the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and his father purchased the properties. Moreover, Ex.B-54 sale deed is more than hundred (100) years old registered sale deed. The remaining all the registered sale deeds are more than fifty (50) years old documents. All the old registered sale deeds holds good and the possession is with defendant No.1, therefore, it is unsafe to rely on Ex.X-1 to come to a conclusion that the father of the plaintiff and the father of defendant No.1 lived as composite family members and after their death the plaintiff and defendant No.1 lived as composite family.
40. As stated supra, the plaintiff relied on Ex.X-1, the contents in Ex.X-1 are seriously denied by defendant No.1. P.W.3, who is the scribe of Ex.X-1, and also the co-brother of the plaintiff aged about 60 years is the best person to speak the truth of alleged composite family in between plaintiff and defendant No.1. But, nothing was elicited from the mouth of P.W.3 by the counsel for the plaintiff that the father of the plaintiff and the father of defendant No.1 lived as a composite family and after their death, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 lived as a composite family. P.W.3 deposed that he is not personally aware of the truth of the contents of Ex.X-1. P.W.3 has not stated about the alleged composite family, moreover, he admits that he is not personally aware of the truth of the contents of Ex.X-1.
41. The law is well settled that mere admission of signature in the Ex.X-1 is not a conclusive proof, moreover, the recitals in Ex.X-1 reveals that it is the only agreement to partition the properties in future, but not a partition list or a partition deed. Admittedly, no rights are accrued to the parties under Ex.X-1 as stated supra; a mere agreement to partition the properties in future is unknown to law. No properties are divided through Ex.X-1, moreover, the schedule of the properties or the survey numbers of the properties are not even mentioned in Ex.X-1. As stated supra, the plaintiff is not a coparcener or a joint owner and the plaintiff is a nephew of defendant No.1. It is well settled that “admission of parties did not confer any title in immovable property; it must be through a registered document.” All the registered documents are in the name of the father of defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 is the only son of late Chenchuramaiah, and all the aforesaid original registered sale deeds are more than fifty (50) years old documents and those sale deeds are not legally cancelled till so far. As long as the said registered sale deeds holds good, the plaintiff cannot claim any right and title in the said properties. As noticed supra, mere living together for some period is not a composite family and the plaintiff is not a coparcener or a member of a joint family, the plaintiff is the nephew of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 produced voluminous documentary evidence under Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-135 to show that the plaint schedule properties are in exclusive possession of defendant No.1. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that there is no composite family as pleaded by the plaintiff in between the father of the plaintiff and the father of defendant No.1 and after their death, in between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and Ex.X-1 does not bind defendant No.1Nos.2 to 6 and 17/appellants, since they are having a valid right and title by way of registered sale deeds.
Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered.
42. POINT No.3:
Whether the plaintiffs in O.S.No.15 of 1981, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, are entitled to the relief of partition as sought in the plaint?
In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of partition as prayed in the plaint in O.S.No.15 of 1981. Though the trial Court came to a conclusion that Ex.B-54 sale deed of the year 1906 holds good and valid, the father of D.W.1 had landed properties in Sanampudi Village and Vempadu Village, and Chenchuramaiah had a capacity to purchase the landed properties under Ex.B-54 from the father of the P.W.2 and his paternal uncle, but, the learned trial Judge gave a perversive finding that the plaintiff is entitled for a relief of partition of the plaint schedule property. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court came to a conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the partition of the properties as prayed in the plaint in O.S.No.15 of 1981.
Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered.
43. POINT No.4:
Whether the plaintiffs in O.S.No.07 of 1981, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kandukur, are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed in the plaint in O.S.No.07 of 1981?
The plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.07 of 1981, was examined as D.W.1 before the trial Court. As per his evidence, his father purchased some of the plaint schedule properties under registered sale deeds and after the death of his father, he purchased some of the plaint schedule properties under registered sale deeds, which was evidenced by the original registered sale deeds which are filed by the defendants. There is an ample evidence to show that defendant No.1 used to pay Cist to the plaint schedule property, which was evidenced by Ex.B-63 to Ex.B-119 Cist receipts. The oral evidence produced by defendant No.1coupled with Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-135 clearly proves that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.07 of 1981 are in settled possession and exclusive possession of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, they are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed in the plaint in O.S.No.07 of 1981, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kandukur.
Accordingly, Point No.4 is answered.
44. POINT No.5:
Whether the decree and common judgment passed in O.S.No.15 of 1981 and O.S.No.07 of 1981, by the trial Court needs any interference?
In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 to 4, the suit in O.S.No.15 of 1981, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kandukur, is liable to be dismissed and the appeal filed by defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 17 in O.S.No.15 of 1981 vide A.S.No.2802 of 1999 is allowed. The suit in O.S.No.07 of 1981, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kandukur, filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.07 of 1981, is decreed by granting a relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.07 of 1981, and the appeal filed vide Tr.A.S.No.512 of 2005 is allowed.
45. In the result, A.S.No.2802 of 1999 and Tr.A.S.No.512 of 2005 are allowed. Each party do bear their own costs in the appeal.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeals shall stand closed.
 |
This Product is Licensed to , |