APHC010433172007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO FIRST APPEAL NO: 27/2007 Between: 1. K. MOHAN, S/O DAMODHARAN R/O MACHALA STREET PUNGANUR CHITTOOR DIST. ...APPELLANT AND 1. K DAMODARAN, S/O KRISHNA DOCTOR R/O 45/27, MADANAPALLE RAOD PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DIST. 2. K SURENDRA, S/O DAMODARAN II-65, PATTAMBI ROAD KUNNAMKULAM, TALLAPULLI TQ., TIRCHUR DIST., 3. K SANTHA, W/O T. DIWAKARAN CASHEIR STATE BANK OF INDIA PUNGANUR CHITOOR DIST. 4. K SARALA, D/O DAMODARAN R/O 45/27, MADANAPALLE RAOD PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DIST. 5. K RADHA, W/O KRISHNA R/O C/O T. DIWAKAR STATE BANK OF INDIA PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DIST. 6. K RAMANI DIED AS PER LRS 9 TO 11, W/O RAMESH BABU ADVOCATE NAGAPALEM PUNGANUR CHITTOOR DIST. 7. K VANITHA, W/O K. RAJENDRA KUMAR R/O CHENDRA REDDY STREET PUNGANUR CHITTOOR DIST. 8. GNANAVATHAMMA, KEPT MISTRESS OF K. DAMODARAN D.NO. 27-131-A-1 UBEDULLAH COMPUND NEAR YETIGADDAPALEM PUNGANUR 9. B RAMESH BABU, S/O B.VASUDEVAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 27-57/17/1, GOKUL STREET, PUNGANUR TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 10. BOJONNALA SUNDEEP, S/O B. RAMESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC PVT EMPLOYEE, R/O D.NO. 27-57/17/1, GOKUL STREET, PUNGANUR TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 11. B NAVEEN, S/O B. RAMESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC STUDENT, R/O D.NO. 27-57/17/1, GOKUL STREET, PUNGANUR TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 05.07.2023 IA NO 1 OF 2021 IN A.S.NO. 27 OF 2007 IMPLEADED THE RESPONDENTS 9 TO 11 BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LRS OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.6 12. K VASANTHY, W/O LATE K. SURENDER, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O 27-82/2, POLICE LANE, MBT ROAD-PONGNUR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517247. RESPONDENT NO 12 IS BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LRS OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.07.2025 IN I.A.NO. 3 OF 2025 IN A.S.NO.27 OF 2007. ...RESPONDENT(S): appeal against the judgment & decree in OS No. 85/99 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Punganur, Chittoor Dist. IA NO: 1 OF 2007(ASMP 26 OF 2007 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 1385 days in representing the ASSR No. 95273/02 before thsi Hon'ble Court IA NO: 1 OF 2013(ASMP 2986 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 1 OF 2014(ASMP 425 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to take the above AS for hearing on Out of Turn basis IA NO: 2 OF 2014(ASMP 899 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant injunction restraining the respondents herein from changing nature of the suit property and creating third party rights over pending disposal of the appeal IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to permit me to bring the respondents No.9 to 11 on record as the legal heirs of the respondent No.6 in the appeal and IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the interim order dated 29.04.2014 passed in ASMP No.899 of 2014 IN A.S.No. 27 of 2007 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to condone the delay of 1092 days in filing the petition to the proposed respondent No.12 as legal representatives of the diseased 2nd respondent, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to set-a-side the abetment order in filing the application to the proposed respondent No. 12as legal representatives of the diseased 2nd respondent and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to allow/permit to bring on the record the proposed LR that is respondent No.7 Smt. K, Vasanthy, who are the L.R.s of late K. Surendra as respondent No.12 in AS No. 27 OF 2007and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S PARINEETA 2. P V VENKATA RAVI SANKAR and Dr. P.B Reddy 3. . 4. S U V SRINIVAS The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: - This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C.”], is filed by the Appellant challenging the decree and judgment, dated 29.08.2002 in O.S.No.85 of 1999 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Punganur [hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”]. 2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents 1 to 8 herein are the defendants in O.S.No.85 of 1999. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondents 9 to 11 were brought on record as legal representatives of deceased respondent No.6 and 12th respondent was brought on record as legal representative of deceased respondent No.2. The appeal against the 1st respondent was dismissed for default as per the Court order dated 25.04.2016. 3. The appellant / plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties into eight equal shares and allot 1/8th share to the plaintiff by division by metes and bounds and by setting aside the relinquishment deed dated 19.09.1985 in respect of the plaintiff‟s share or in the alternative to allot the properties as per the Will dated 08.10.1985 to the plaintiff and for costs of the suit. 4. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 5. The brief averments of the plaint in O.S.No.85 of 1999 are as under: (i) The plaintiff and 2nd defendant are brothers and they are the sons of 1st defendant. The defendants 3 to 7 are the sisters of plaintiff. The 8th defendant is the kept mistress of 1st defendant. The plaintiff himself, D-1 and D-2 constitute a Hindu joint family, for which 1st defendant has been acting as 'Kartha' and Manager of the family. Their family originally belonged to 'Kunnam Kulam' Kerala State and they have came down to Punganur about 35 years back. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule properties belonged to his mother 'Ammu Ammaniyamma‟ and she died about fourteen years back leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 as her legal heirs. After demise of his mother, he himself and D-1 to D-7 inherited the properties through his deceased mother. (ii) The plaintiff got married, after the demise of his mother against the wish of his father (D-1). The 1st defendant started disliking him. All the children of D-1 were married except D-4 and after the marriages of the children, some misunderstandings arose among the woman folk. On account of misunderstandings, the 1st defendant filed a civil suit in O.S.No.111 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge Court, Madanapalle for grant of injunction in respect of item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule with false allegations. But, subsequently, the well-wishers and elders of the locality compromised the matter and settled that the 1st defendant must made equal distribution of the properties to his male children and they should take the burden of performing the marriage of 4th defendant as the other daughters had already married and the children of D-1 including plaintiff should relinquish their right in the plaint schedule properties in favour of their father and in turn D-1 should bequeath the properties in favour of the plaintiff and 2nd defendant with an obligation to celebrate the marriages of the 4th defendant. As per the advice of elders, the plaintiff along with D-2 to D-7 executed the registered Relinquishment Deed in favour of 1st defendant on 19-9-1985 in respect of plaint schedule property and 1st defendant executed registered Will dated 08.10.1985 bequeathing the properties shown in the plaint to the plaintiff and 2nd defendant. After compromise, the parties i.e., the plaintiff and D-2 to D-7 lived happily without any misunderstandings. (iii) While so, the 1st defendant at the instance of 8th defendant and 6th defendant, who are very much attached to 1st defendant, got issued a notice on 07.03.1988 to the plaintiff stating that he has cancelled the Will and that he would deal with the plaint schedule properties as he likes, thereby the 1st defendant played fraud upon the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for setting aside the relinquishment deed dated 19.09.1985 and for partition of his legitimate 1/8th share in all the plaint schedule properties or in the alternative to allot the properties if possible as per the Will dated 08.10.1985 6. Defendants 3, 5 and 6 remained set ex parte. The 1st defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 2 and 4. The 7th defendant filed memo stating that she has no written statement and prayed to decree the suit. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the 1st defendant are as follows: (i) The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The defendant No.1 admitted the relationship pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint. The defendant No.1 denied that 8th defendant is his kept mistress. Defendant No.1 also denied the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff, D-1 and D-2 have constituted Hindu joint family and D-1 is the Manager. The Defendant No.1 admitted that the plaintiff married after the death of his mother. D-1 never objected nor expressed any displeasure against the plaintiff marrying a woman of his choice. According to D-1, the plaintiff has been disobedient and has been leading a wayward life from the beginning and he was not regular and steady in his stay with the parents. He has been living with his wife from the time of his marriage and he has been visiting 1st defendant's House whenever he wanted money and when the 1st defendant refused to oblige him, he has been behaving aggressively and indecently towards the 1st defendant. The plaintiff abused in vulgar language and attempting to assault him. (ii) The 1st defendant has tolerated the bad behaviour of the plaintiff out of love and affection, but as the conduct the plaintiff turned violent and became unbearable, the 1st defendant given a complaint to the police and 1st defendant was also constrained to submit a protection petition in the month of February, 1988 to the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor seeking the help from the police as the 1st defendant apprehended danger from the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff has been coming to the house of the 1st defendant and has been creating scenes by exhibiting indecent behaviour and by intimidating the 1st defendant and the 4th defendant, who is unmarried by threats of violence before and after filing of the suit. (iii) According to D-1, there are no properties belonged to the alleged joint family and the properties mentioned in item Nos.1 to 3 of plaint A-Schedule are acquired by him by his independent and self exertions and none of his children including the plaintiff had any right in them. According to D-1, the execution of relinquishment deed, dated 19.09.1985 by the plaintiff and D-2 to D-7 and execution of registered Will by him dated 08.10.1985 have nothing to do with the alleged compromise. According to D-1, the execution of the said relinquishment deed by the plaintiff and D-2 to D-7 was voluntary act. Similarly, the 1st defendant executed the said Will voluntarily. He purchased the site comprising item No.2 of the plaint A-schedule for consideration of Rs.1,000/- under a registered sale deed with his own money. He executed a registered Gift deed dated 19.06.1958 in favour of his wife 'Ammu Ammal' nominally. Ever since the purchase, he was in possession of the said site and never parted with the same at any time. The gift deed executed by him in favour of his wife, neither intended to be acted upon nor acted upon. His wife never in possession of the property mentioned in the Gift Deed dated 19.06.1958. His wife came from poor family and she had no support from her parents side and she was not in a position to have any construction. She had no capacity to contribute any money independently for the acquisition of any property. (iv) The 1st defendant offered all the three items of the plaint „A‟ schedule to the Indian Bank, Punganur as collateral security, as guarantor for the loan advanced to the plaintiff for purchase of lorry. The 2nd defendant has been living in item No.1 of the plaint „A‟ schedule since the time of its construction. The 2nd defendant married one Vasanthi in the year 1976 and continued to live in the said house with his wife and children. The 2nd defendant‟s wife‟s two sisters namely Shobana and Ananda Kumari have been living at Dubai. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. The 8th defendant also filed written statement with the following contentions: The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The 8th defendant has no concern with the alleged joint family of the plaintiff and other defendants. She is interested in item No.4 of the plaint schedule property. She purchased the site of item No.4 of the plaint schedule under registered sale deed dated 11.09.1981. Later she got constructed a house in the said site in the year 1983 after getting plan approved from the Gram Panchayat, Punganur and ever since she has been in possession of the same and paying cist to the Punganur Gram Panchayat, previously and later she is paying to Punganur Municipality. According to D-8, the plaintiff or other Defendants have no right whatsoever over item No.4 of the plaint schedule property. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. 8. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff and D-1 and D-2 constitute joint family and whether the plaintiff is in joint possession of the suit properties along with D-1 and D-2? (2) Whether the judgment in O.S.111/85 on the file of this Court would not bind the plaintiff? (3) Whether item No.4 exclusively belong to the 8th defendant? (4) Whether the institution of the joint family is unknown among the Caste of the parties? (5) Whether item No.1 to 3 of plaint A-schedule are the self acquisition of 1st defendant? (6) Whether the relinquishment deed dated 19.09.1985 and the Will deed dated 08.10.1985 are true, valid and if so whether would they effect the rights of D-1 over item No.1 to 3 herein? (7) Whether item No.1, 23 to 28, 31, 34, 40to 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54 to 56 of Commissioner‟s Report in course of inventory of item No.1 of plaint A-schedule belong to the wife of D-2 by name Vasanthi and the other items as mentioned in para 17 of the written statement of D-1 belong to the persons mentioned therein which were invented by the Commissioner so also in para 18 and 19 of the written statement of D-1? (8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition if so to what share? (9) To what relief? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.11 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.10 were marked. 10. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment, dated 29.08.2002, against which the present appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in the suit questioning the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. 11. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.V.Venkata Ravi Sankar and Dr.P.B.Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. He would further contend that on the advice of elders, the plaintiff, his brother and sisters executed a relinquishment deed in favour of their father 1st defendant and subsequently the 1st defendant failed to fulfill his promise and cancelled the Will said to have been executed by the 1st defendant and that the relinquishment deed is liable to be cancelled and the relinquishment deed is obtained by father by playing fraud and misrepresentation and that the same has to be cancelled. Learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that the reasons given by the trial Court for dismissing the suit are unsustainable and that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the suit and that there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the learned trial Judge. 14. Now the points for determination in the present appeal are: 1) Whether item No.4 of plaint A-schedule property exclusively belongs to 8th defendant? 2) Whether Ex.A.1 registered relinquishment deed is liable to be cancelled and whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief of partition of the plaint schedule property? 3) Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit? 15. Point No.1: Whether item No.4 of plaint A-schedule property exclusively belongs to 8th defendant? It is the specific case of the plaintiff that item No.4 of the plaint A- schedule property is joint family property and it was purchased by the 1st defendant in the name of 8th defendant and the 1st defendant is having illegal contact with the 8th defendant and 8th defendant is the concubine of the 1st defendant. The own brother / 2nd defendant and sisters of the plaintiff / defendants 3 to 7 strongly disputed the aforesaid contention taken by the plaintiff and they contended that they are no way connected with item No.4 of plaint A-schedule property and they denied the statement of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant is having illegal contact with the 8th defendant. The undisputed facts of both the parties are the plaintiff and 2nd defendant are sons and the defendants 3 to 7 are daughters. According to the defendants 1 to 7, item No.4 is the exclusive property of 8th defendant and they are no way concerned with item No.4 of the plaint A-schedule property. The 8th defendant was examined as D.W.5 before the trial Court. As per the evidence of D.W.5/8th defendant, item No.4 of the plaint A-schedule property is her self acquired property and she purchased the same under a registered sale deed after paying sale consideration under original of Ex.A5 registered sale deed and he was present at the time of registration of the sale deed and her husband is working as a Painter and his second so is a RMP Doctor and she is residing along with her husband and children and she is unconnected with the family affairs of the 1st defendant. As stated supra, the defendants 1 to 7 i.e., father, own brother and sisters of the plaintiff are not even supports the case of the plaintiff to prove that item No.4 of the schedule property is purchased by the 1st defendant in the name of 8th defendant. The plaintiff has taken a specific plea that item No.4 of the plaint A-schedule property was purchased by his father in the name of 8th defendant. Therefore, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove the same. But undoubtedly, the plaintiff failed to prove the same. The own brother and sisters of the plaintiff are also not supporting the case of the plaintiff and the plaintiff failed to discharge his burden to prove that item No.4 of the plaint A-schedule property was purchased by the 1st defendant in the name of 8th defendant. On the other hand, the 8th defendant proved that item No.4 of the plaint A-schedule property is her self acquired property. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled the relief of partition in item No.4 of the plaint A-schedule property. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered against the appellant / plaintiff. 16. Point No.2: Whether Ex.A.1 registered relinquishment deed is liable to be cancelled and whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief of partition of the plaint schedule property? It is the specific case of the appellant / plaintiff that item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint A-schedule properties are exclusive properties of her mother by name “Ammu Ammaniyamma” and she got the same through her parents at Kerala and she sold the property which was got from her parents and with the sale proceeds, she purchased item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint A-schedule property. The plaintiff approached the civil Court for seeking the relief of partition of plaint schedule properties. Therefore, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove the same. 17. As seen from the material on record, item No.1 of the plaint A- schedule property is situated at Kerala. The specific case of the 2nd defendant, which is supported by the 1st defendant is that in item No.2 of the plaint schedule property, the 2nd defendant is living with his wife and children. The same is undisputed by the plaintiff. As seen from the material on record, item No.1 of the plaint A-schedule property is situated at Kerala and item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint A-schedule property are situated at Punganur town. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that all the schedule properties are exclusively belongs to his mother and she purchased the said property with the sale proceeds of the property which was given by her parents and she died at about 14 years ago leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 as her legal heirs and after the death of mother of the plaintiff, they inherited the properties. It is undisputed that the mother of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 died intestate. It is the specific case of the 1st defendant that all the schedule properties i.e. item Nos.1 to 3 are his self acquired properties and he has every right to deal with the said properties. He further contended that in view of the relinquishment deed executed by defendants 2 to 7 and plaintiff in his favour in respect of the suit properties, he is having absolute rights in the suit property and the Will executed by him dated 08.10.1985 is validly cancelled by the registered revocation deed and the same is informed to the plaintiff by issuing a legal notice under Ex.A.2. The 1st defendant further contended that subsequent to the cancellation of the Will, item No.1 of the schedule property was given to the 2nd defendant and item No.2 was given to the 4th defendant and he retained item No.3 of the plaint schedule property. It is the specific case of the 1st defendant that he is no way connected with item No.4 of plaint A-schedule property and he is not having any relationship with the 8th defendant as alleged by the plaintiff. 18. It is in the evidence of plaintiff / P.W.1 that with the sale proceeds of his mother‟s property, which was got from her parents at Kerala, they purchased the suit property and he came to know the same through his mother. As seen from his own evidence, it is evident that the plaintiff is not having personal knowledge over the same. The own witnesses of the plaintiff, P.Ws.2 to 5 have not stated in their evidence that with the sale proceeds of property of wife of 1st defendant which was got from her parents, the 1st defendant purchased the schedule properties. In his evidence in cross- examination, P.W.6 admits that the 1st defendant is well known RMP Doctor in Punganur town and the residential house of 1st defendant was got constructed prior to age of his discretion and hospital building was constructed by the 1st defendant more than 30 years ago. He further admits he does not know the details with regard to the partition between mother of the plaintiff, his brothers and sisters. Therefore, it is evident that he is not having very much knowledge about the properties possessed by the mother of the P.W.1. P.W.2 is a Senior Assistant in Sub-Registrar office. He is no way connected with the family affairs of the plaintiff. P.Ws.3 and 4 have not deposed in their evidence that with the sale proceeds of property of mother of the plaintiff, which was got from her parents, the 1st defendant purchased the schedule properties. P.W.6 is no way connected with the family affairs of the plaintiff. He is a Senior Assistant in Sub-Registrar office. 19. The 1st defendant is examined as D.W.1. It is in the evidence of 1st defendant / D.W.1 that the parents of his wife are agricultural coolies and his in-laws have no financial capacity to help him and also his wife. It is in the evidence of D.W.2 / 2nd defendant that item No.1 of the schedule property was purchased in the name of his mother and the 1st defendant himself got constructed the house with his own amount and the 1st defendant spent the amount and he got constructed the same in the item Nos.1 to 3 of plaint A- schedule property. The house site was purchased by the 1st defendant in the name of his mother and subsequently, the 1st defendant constructed the house with his own amount. He further deposed that item No.4 of A-schedule property does not belongs to their family and the 1st defendant used to run hotel business at Punganur and subsequently he practiced as a medical practitioner at Punganur and he is a well known medical practitioner and he used to earn good income in the medical profession and with that income, he purchased the sites in the name of his mother and constructed houses at Punganur and Kerala. He further deposed that his parents are very poor and they are living by doing cooli work. D.W.3 deposed in his evidence that the 1st defendant is his brother-in-law, neither himself nor his brothers or his father never helped the 1st defendant financially in purchasing the house sites and construction of houses in Punganur town and also at Kerala. He further deposed that the 1st defendant initially started hotel business and subsequently he started medical practice and in the medical practice, the 1st defendant earned good income and with the said income, the 1st defendant purchased the said house sites and constructed the houses. D.W.4 deposed in his evidence that the 1st defendant came to Punganur and started business and subsequently, he entered into the hotel business and he started medical practice in Punganur town and he used to earn good income in the medical practice. Even as per the own witness of the plaintiff / P.W.4, the 1st defendant is practicing as a RMP Doctor in Punganur town and P.W.4 used to take treatment with the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant constructed houses in Punganur town. Another own witness of the plaintiff / P.W.5 admits the 1st defendant is a well known RMP Doctor in Punganur and the residential house of 1st defendant was got constructed prior to age of his discretion and hospital building was constructed by the 1st defendant for more than 30 years ago. 20. As per the evidence of D.W.1, at about 12 years ago, he got purchased the lorry for the sake of the plaintiff for his livelihood. The same is undisputed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also admits that his father purchased the lorry. D.W.1 further deposed that he purchased the lorry by obtaining loan from the Indian Bank, Punganur branch. D.W.1 further deposed that P.W.1 did not discharge the said bank loan and he repaid the due amount in the said loan account. The plaintiff admitted in his evidence in cross-examination that he married the daughter of their maidservant without the consent and permission of his father. He further admits that the 1st defendant stood as a surety for the loan borrowed from the bank for purchase of lorry and the said loan is still due to the bank. He further admits the 2nd defendant acquired some more properties with his own income in Kerala. 21. The material on record reveals that the mother of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 is not an employee and she is not an earning member in the family. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to show that the mother of the plaintiff / wife of 1st defendant got the property from her parents. There is also no evidence on record that with the sale proceeds of the said property, the 1st defendant purchased item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint A-schedule property. Even as per the evidence of own witness of the plaintiff, the 1st defendant used to work as a registered medical practitioner and he himself constructed a house property at Punganur town and also at Kerala. The own brother / 2nd defendant and sisters of the plaintiff are not even supporting the case of the plaintiff. Moreover, the plaintiff approached the Court for seeking the relief of partition of the plaint schedule property, with a specific plea that with the sale proceeds of property of their mother / wife of the 1st defendant, they purchased item Nos.1 to 3 of A-schedule property. But the same is not proved by the plaintiff. The plaintiff not even examined the single relative of the mother of the plaintiff or brothers and parents of the mother of the plaintiff. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff failed to prove that item Nos.1 to 3 of the A-schedule properties are purchased with the sale proceeds of the property of the mother of the plaintiff, which was got from her parents. 22. It is the specific case of the plaintiff and the plaintiff also deposed in his evidence that after the death of his mother, his father filed O.S.No.111 of 1985 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge‟s Court at Madanapalle against them in respect of the suit property for injunction. But he admits in his evidence in cross-examination that he is not a party to the suit O.S.No.111 of 1985. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that at the intervention of the elders, his father agreed to withdraw the said suit and agreed to convey the suit properties to them and the village elders advised his father to execute a document in favour of their father and their father agreed to execute a Will in their favour. He further pleaded in pursuance of the said mediation, his father not-pressed the suit O.S.No.111 of 1985 and all of them executed a relinquishment deed under original of Ex.A.1 dated 19.09.1985. The plaintiff himself admitted in his evidence in cross-examination itself that he was not a party in the suit filed by his father vide O.S.No.111 of 1985 and he does not know against whom his father filed a civil suit O.S.No.111 of 1985. 23. It is in the evidence of plaintiff that after filing of suit against him and others vide O.S.No.111 of 1985 in respect of the suit property for injunction, at the intervention of elders, a compromise has taken place and in pursuance of the said compromise, the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 executed a registered relinquishment deed by relinquishing their rights in the schedule property and their father assured that he will give property to all the children by way of Will and consequently the alleged Will dated 08.10.1985 was executed by his father bequeathing item No.2 of the plaint schedule property to plaintiff and item No.1 to 2nd defendant and item No.3 was given to defendants 3 to 7. The plaintiff further pleaded that subsequently, the said Will was cancelled and he further contend that by way of misrepresentation and fraud, his father obtained a registered relinquishment deed. The execution of registered relinquishment deed under original of Ex.A.1 dated 19.09.1985 is undisputed by the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7. The plaintiff approached the civil Court for seeking the relief of partition of plaint schedule property by setting aside the registered relinquishment deed said to have been executed by the plaintiff along with his brother and sisters dated 19.09.1985. Moreover, the own brother and own sisters of the plaintiff i.e. defendants 2 to 7 are not even supporting the case of the plaintiff. It is not their specific case that their father obtained a registered relinquishment deed by way of fraudulently and misrepresentation. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove that in pursuance of the compromise of O.S.No.111 of 1985 which was filed by the 1st defendant, he executed a registered relinquishment deed in favour of the 1st defendant along with defendants 2 to 7. The initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove that original of Ex.A.1 i.e. Ex.B.7 registered relinquishment deed was obtained by the 1st defendant from himself and defendants 2 to 7 by way of misrepresentation and fraudulently. 24. To discharge his burden, the plaintiff relied on the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5. P.W.2 is a Senior Assistant in Sub-Registrar Office, Punganur. P.W.3 is one B.Ramesh Babu, who is a resident of Punganur. As per the evidence of P.W.3, a Panchayat was taken place in the house of Ex-Village Munsif, in respect of property of 1st defendant. In the said Panchayat, the elders allotted the house property to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant agreed that he will execute a Will deed after execution of the relinquishment deed by the plaintiff and his daughters and son and in pursuance of the same, the relinquishment deed was executed and at the time of execution of Ex.A.1, the 1st defendant did not pay any amount to his children. But in his evidence in cross-examination, he admits that he is none other than the husband of 6th defendant. Admittedly, the 6th defendant is remained set ex parte. In cross- examination, he admits that he separated from his family after marrying 6th defendant and he does not know the details and financial status of the plaintiff and sisters-in-law. He further admits that Ex.A.1 shows the 1st defendant paid Rs.40,000/- consideration to the executants and he know the 1st defendant since his age of discretion and in his childhood itself, the 1st defendant was a famous Doctor in Punganur town. He further admits that as per Ex.A.1, the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 have no right in the properties of the 1st defendant. As seen from the evidence of P.W.3, though he stated in his evidence in chief examination that nothing was paid by the 1st defendant, but he admits Ex.A.1 document itself reveals that the 1st defendant paid Rs.40,000/- consideration to the executants of the document and as per Ex.A.1, the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 have no rights in the properties of the 1st defendant. As per the evidence of P.W.5, one Rajendra is another attestor to the alleged relinquishment deed. But the said Rajendra is not examined by the plaintiff. 25. P.W.4 deposed in his evidence that he went to Village Munsif for obtaining certification of his son and he noticed there was a conversation with regard to the properties of 1st defendant and the daughters and son of 1st defendant executed an agreement in favour of Ranga Reddy Ex-Village Munsif. His evidence is not even supporting the case of the plaintiff. The names of P.Ws.3 and 4 are not even referred in the plaint. In the plaint, there is no whisper that P.Ws.3 and 4 are acted as elders in the mediation. There is no whisper in the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 that in pursuance of the compromise, the suit filed by the 1st defendant vide O.S.No.111 of 1985 was not-pressed by the 1st defendant and in pursuance of the said settlement, the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 executed a registered relinquishment deed in favour of the 1st defendant. No evidence is produced by the plaintiff to show that original of Ex.A.1 i.e. equivalent to Ex.B.7 is obtained by way of fraudulently and undue influence. The other executants of the document Ex.A.1 i.e. own brother and sisters of the plaintiff are not even supporting that the registered relinquishment deed is obtained by their father by playing fraud and undue influence. Ex.A.1 relinquishment deed is undisputed by both the parties. There is no whisper in the registered relinquishment deed that in pursuance of the mediation held by the elders, the 1st defendant agreed to give the properties by executing a Will subsequent to the execution of the relinquishment deed by the plaintiff, his brother and sisters. 26. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff against him and others and in pursuance of the said suit, a compromise was taken place. But as per the own admissions of the plaintiff, the said suit is not filed against him and he is not even a party to the said suit. In the cross-examination, the plaintiff himself admitted that a suit in O.S.No.111 of 1985 is not filed against him. The certified copy of the relinquishment deed is filed and marked as Ex.A.1. As seen from the recitals of the registered relinquishment deed, there is no mention in Ex.A.1 about filing of suit by the 1st defendant for permanent injunction and also in view of the alleged compromise, the relinquishment deed was executed by the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7. The plaintiff admitted in his evidence in chief examination itself that himself and defendants 2 to 7 executed a registered relinquishment deed dated 19.09.1985 in favour of their father / 1st defendant. He further admits, he executed Ex.A.1 registered relinquishment deed under original of Ex.A.1, himself and defendants 2 to 7 relinquished their rights in the plaint schedule property. He further admits under Ex.A.1, the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 relinquished their rights in the properties of 1st defendant, therefore, these properties are absolute properties of the 1st defendant. The recitals of relinquishment deed goes to show that it was registered before the Sub-Registrar and the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 relinquished their rights in the plaint schedule joint family property by receiving amount of Rs.40,000/- from the 1st defendant. The same is admitted by the 2nd defendant. But the plaintiff denied about receipt of amount of Rs.40,000/- from the 1st defendant. But P.W.3, one of the attestor of relinquishment deed, admits that as per Ex.A.1, the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 have no right in the property of 1st defendant. 27. It is in the evidence of D.W.1 that when P.W.1 raised a dispute with regard to the suit properties, he paid Rs.40,000/- in consideration of the registered relinquishment deed said to have been executed by his sons and daughters to avoid future litigation. He deposed that his sons and daughters have no right and share in item Nos.1 to 3 of the schedule property and he is no way concerned with item No.4 of the schedule property. The 2nd defendant / D.W.2, who is own brother of the plaintiff, deposed in his evidence that in the year 1985, the plaintiff quarreled with the 1st defendant with regard to the property. He along with the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 7 executed a registered relinquishment deed in favour of the 1st defendant dated 19.09.1985 by receiving consideration of Rs.40,000/- and Ex.B.7 is the said registered relinquishment deed. He further deposed under Ex.B.7, they relinquished their rights with an understanding that the 1st defendant is at liberty to enjoy the property as he likes. He further deposed that even prior to Ex.B.7, they have no right and share in the property since the said properties are self acquired properties of 1st defendant. 28. The execution of registered relinquishment deed is undisputed by the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7. The plaintiff himself specifically admits that he along with defendants 2 to 7 executed a registered relinquishment deed dated 19.09.1985 in favour of the 1st defendant. The recitals of Ex.A.1 goes to show that after receipt of Rs.40,000/- amount from the 1st defendant, the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 relinquished their rights in the joint family property by giving absolute rights to 1st defendant to deal with the suit properties. The execution of original of Ex.A.1 registered relinquishment deed is undisputed by either the plaintiff or the defendants 2 to 7. Furthermore, the own brother of the plaintiff i.e. the 2nd defendant supported the recitals of Ex.A.1 relinquishment deed. The recitals in registered relinquishment deed is undisputed by the defendants 2 to 7, who are the executants to the relinquishment deed. 29. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that in Ex.A.1 itself, it was recited the schedule properties are the joint family properties. As seen from the registered relinquishment deed, the plaintiff, his brother and all sisters relinquished their share in the plaint schedule property. Now, the plaintiff cannot seek partition of the plaint schedule property against him father and it is the absolute property of his father. On the other hand, the plaintiff failed to prove that with the sale proceeds received by his mother by way of sale of property, which was got from her parents, they purchased item Nos.1 to 3 of plaint A-schedule properties. The defendants 2 to 7 are own brother and sisters of the plaintiff. Neither the brother of the plaintiff nor the sisters of the plaintiff i.e. defendants 2 to 7 supports the plaintiff that the suit properties are purchased with the sale proceeds of the property inherited from the parents of their mother. The plaintiff did not even choose to examine the parents of her mother or any relative of his mother to prove the same. 30. The original of Ex.A.1 registered relinquishment deed i.e. equivalent to Ex.B.7 registered relinquishment deed is undisputed by both the parties. As per the own case of the plaintiff, he executed a registered relinquishment deed along with his brother and sisters. The recitals in Ex.A.1 goes to show that after receipt of Rs.40,000/- amount from the 1st defendant, the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 have relinquished their rights in the schedule properties. There is no dispute about execution of Ex.A.1 by the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7. The 2nd defendant, who is none other than the own brother of the plaintiff pleaded in his written statement and also in the evidence that they received Rs.40,000/- amount and relinquished their rights in the schedule property. The defendants 2 to 7 are not even supporting the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not choose to summon the defendants 3, 5 and 6 to prove his case, who remained set ex parte and he failed to prove that the contents in Ex.A.1 are incorrect. It is admitted case of both the parties that the registered relinquishment deed is executed by the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 by relinquishing their rights in the plaint schedule property. As on the date of filing of the suit, the registered relinquishment deed is in force. Unless the said registered relinquishment deed is set aside, the plaintiff is not entitled to file a suit for partition. The primary relief sought by the plaintiff in the present suit is for partition of the suit schedule property. Unless the plaintiff proved the alleged fraud and misrepresentation played by the 1st defendant in obtaining the registered relinquishment deed, the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain a suit for partition of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled the relief of partition of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff herein filed the suit for partition of the schedule properties against his father, his brother and sisters. As long as the registered relinquishment deed is holds good, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek partition of the plaint schedule property. 31. As stated supra, the plaintiff failed to prove that the Ex.A.1 original registered relinquishment deed is obtained by his father by way of fraudulently and misrepresentation. As noticed supra, the plaintiff is not even entitled the relief of cancellation of registered relinquishment deed. Unless the registered relinquishment deed said to have been executed by the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 is cancelled, the plaintiff is not entitled for partition of item Nos.1 to 3 of the schedule properties. 32. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant, who executed a Will dated 08.10.1985 was subsequently cancelled by executing a registered cancellation deed dated 20.07.1998 and also intimated the same under Ex.A.2 legal notice. As seen from the recitals of the Will deed dated 08.10.1985, the testator / 1st defendant reserved his right during his lifetime to cancel the Will or to revoke the Will. P.W.2 is a Senior Assistant in Sub- Registrar Office. As per his evidence, the 1st defendant cancelled the Will dated 08.10.1985 executed by him in favour of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7. Ex.X.1 is the registered cancellation deed, which was said to have been executed on 27.02.1988. During the lifetime of the testator, the testator is having every right to cancel or revoke the earlier Will. The registered Will dated 08.10.1985 is executed by the 1st defendant during his lifetime by reserving his rights to revoke or cancel the said Will. For the aforesaid reasons, it is evident that the Will deed dated 08.10.1985 is subsequently cancelled by the 1st defendant by way of executing a registered cancellation deed dated 27.02.1988 and the same is also intimated to the plaintiff by way of legal notice under Ex.A.2. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court held that the plaintiff relinquished his rights in the plaint schedule property by executing a registered relinquishment deed and the plaintiff also failed to prove the said registered relinquishment deed is obtained by the 1st defendant by playing fraud and misrepresentation. Unless and until the said registered relinquishment deed is cancelled, the plaintiff is not entitled for partition of the schedule properties. Furthermore, the existence of B-schedule movable properties are not proved by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for partition of the schedule properties and Ex.A.1 original registered relinquishment deed is valid and the same is not liable to be cancelled and the plaintiff is also not entitled for partition of the plaint schedule properties. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered against the appellant / plaintiff. 33. Point No.3: Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit? In view of my findings on point Nos.1 and 2, the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings given by the learned trial Judge in its judgment. 34. Resultantly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. Each party do bear their own costs in the appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J To, 1. K DAMODARAN, S/O KRISHNA DOCTOR R/O 45/27, MADANAPALLE RAOD PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DIST. 2. K SURENDRA, S/O DAMODARAN II-65, PATTAMBI ROAD KUNNAMKULAM, TALLAPULLI TQ., TIRCHUR DIST., 3. K SANTHA, W/O T. DIWAKARAN CASHEIR STATE BANK OF INDIA PUNGANUR CHITOOR DIST. 4. K SARALA, D/O DAMODARAN R/O 45/27, MADANAPALLE RAOD PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DIST. 5. K RADHA, W/O KRISHNA R/O C/O T. DIWAKAR STATE BANK OF INDIA PUNGANUR, CHITTOOR DIST. 6. K RAMANI DIED AS PER LRS 9 TO 11, W/O RAMESH BABU ADVOCATE NAGAPALEM PUNGANUR CHITTOOR DIST. 7. K VANITHA, W/O K. RAJENDRA KUMAR R/O CHENDRA REDDY STREET PUNGANUR CHITTOOR DIST. 8. GNANAVATHAMMA, KEPT MISTRESS OF K. DAMODARAN D.NO. 27-131-A-1 UBEDULLAH COMPUND NEAR YETIGADDAPALEM PUNGANUR 9. B RAMESH BABU, S/O B.VASUDEVAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 27-57/17/1, GOKUL STREET, PUNGANUR TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 10. BOJONNALA SUNDEEP, S/O B. RAMESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC PVT EMPLOYEE, R/O D.NO. 27-57/17/1, GOKUL STREET, PUNGANUR TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 11. B NAVEEN, S/O B. RAMESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC STUDENT, R/O D.NO. 27-57/17/1, GOKUL STREET, PUNGANUR TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 05.07.2023 IA NO 1 OF 2021 IN A.S.NO. 27 OF 2007 IMPLEADED THE RESPONDENTS 9 TO 11 BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LRS OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.6 12. K VASANTHY, W/O LATE K. SURENDER, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O 27-82/2, POLICE LANE, MBT ROAD-PONGNUR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517247. RESPONDENT NO 12 IS BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LRS OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.07.2025 IN I.A.NO. 3 OF 2025 IN A.S.NO.27 OF 2007. 13. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT VGKRJ DATED:23/10/2025 ORDER AS 27/2007