APHC010088572021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.108 of 2021 Between: 1. Smt.Madeti Ramadevi, W/o Sri M.Venkata Durga Ananda Rao, Hindu, aged 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Sattupalli Village, Khammam District, Telangana-507303. 2. Madeti Venkata Durga /Hi”landa Rao, S/o.Sri M.Subrahmanyam, Hindu, aged 52 years, Occ: RTO Agent, R/o.Sattupalli Village, Khammam District, Telangana-507303. ...Appellants/Appellants/ Defendants 4 & 5 AND 1. Smt Vandanapu Basavamma, W/o.Sri V.Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged 80 years, Occ; Housewife, R/o.Gangaram Village-507303, Sattupalli Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana. 2. Smt Golla Radhamma, W/o.Sri G.Govinda Rao, Hindu, aged 72 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Cheepurugudem Village - 521 215, Vissannapeta Mandal, Tiruvuru, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. Smt Nagabandi Basavamma, W/o.Sri N.Basava Rao, Hindu, aged 65 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Narayanapuram Village - 507 303, Sattupalli Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana. 4. Samayamanthula Saraswathi (died) ... Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs S.Sarvayya, Hindu, aged 72 Sattupalli 5. Samayamanthula Basava Rao, S/o.Sri years, Occ; Box Shop, R/o.Gangaram Village-507303 Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana. 6. Samayamanthula Peda Basava Rao, S/o.Sri S.Sarvayya, Hindu, aged 60 years, Occ: Box Shop, R/o.Gangaram Village-507303, Sathupalli Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana. 7. Samayamanthula China Basava Rao, S/o.Sri S.Sarvayya, Hindu, aged 55 years, Occ: Box Shop, R/o.Gangaram Village - 507303, Sathupalli, Khammam District, Telangana. ...Respondents/ Respondents/ Defendant Nos.1 to 3 Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C, Decree dated 08-02-2021 questioning the Judgment and passed in A.S.No.95 of 2015 on the file of the court of the VII Additional District Judge, West judgment and decree dated 10-09-2015 Godavari, Eluru in confirming the passed in O.S.No.157 of 2006 on the Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari file of the court of the Principal Junior District, Andhra Pradesh. Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court of and the material evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Turaga Sai Surya for the Appellants and of Sri Advocate Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and none appeared for Respondent Nos.4 to 7. This Court doth judgment and decree 1. That the Second Appeal be and is hereby dismissed; as follows: / 2. That the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court be and is hereby confirmed. 3. That each party do bear their own costs in the Second Appeal. / / / / / Sd/- V DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The VII Additional District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2. The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru, West Godavari District. 3. Two CD Copies TK V/flB ^ . w HIGH COURT DATED: 10/09/2025 DECREE SA No.108 of 2021 2025 Co DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL ■ '< APHC010088572021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO SECOND APPEAL No.108 of 2021 Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C, questioning the Judgment and Decree dated 08-02-2021 passed in A.S.No.95 of 2015 on the file of the court of the VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru in confirming the judgment and decree dated 10-09-2015 passed in O.S.No.157 of 2006 on the file of the court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. Between; 1. S mf. Mad eti Ramad evi //o.Sri M.Venkata Durga Ananda Rao, Hindu, aged 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Sattupalli Village, Khammam District, Telangana-507303. 2. Madeti Venkata Durga Ananda Rao, S/o.Sri M.Subrahmanyam, Hindu, aged 52 years, Occ: RTO Agent, R/o.Sattupalli Village, Khammam District, Telangana-507303. ...Appellants/Appellants/ Defendants 4 & 5 AND 1. Smt Vandanapu Basavamma, W/o.Sri V.Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged 80 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Gangaram Village-507303, Sattupalli Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana. 2. Smt Golla Radhamma, W/o.Sri G.Govinda Rao, Hindu, aged 72 years,' Occ; Housewife, R/o.Cheepurugudem Village - 521 215, Vissannapeta Mandal, Tiruvuru, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. Smt Nagabandi Basavamma, W/o.Sri N.Basava Rao, years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Narayanapuram Village Sattupalli Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana. 4. Samayamanthula Saraswathi (died) Hindu, aged 65 507 303, ...Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs 5. Samayamanthula Basava Rao, S/o.Sri S.Sarvayya, Hindu years, Occ; Box Shop, R/o.Gangaram Village-507303, Sattupalli Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana. 6. Samayamanthula Peda Basava Rao, S/o.Sri S.Sarvayya, Hindu, aged 60 years, Occ; Box Shop, R/o.Gangaram Village-507303, Sathupalli Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana. 7. Samayamanthula China Basava Rao, S/o.Sri S.Sarvayya, Hindu, aged 55 years, Occ: Box Shop, R/o.Gangaram Village - 507303, Sathupalli, Khammam District, Telangana. aged 72 ...Respondents/ Respondents/ Defendant Nos.1 to 3 lA 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the judgment and decree dated 10-09-2015 passed in O.S.No.157/ 2006 on the file of the court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh confirmed vide Judgment and Decree dated as 08-02-2021 passed A.S.No.95/2015 on the file of the court of the VII Additional District in Judge, West Godavari, Eluru pending disposal of the above appeal. Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Turaga Sai Surya Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 7: None Appeared The Court made the following order: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Second Appeal No.108 of 2021 Judgment: This second appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree, dated 08-02-2021, in A.S.No.95 of 2015 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, in confirming the judgment and decree, dated 10-9-2015, in O.S.No.157 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru. 2. The appellants 1 and 2 herein are defendants 4 and 5, respondents 1 to 4 are plaintiffs and respondents 5 to 7 are defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.157 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru. 3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.157 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, with a prayer for partition of schedule property into seven equal shares by metes and bounds and for the allotment of four such shares to the plaintiffs, future profits and for costs of the suit. 4. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, decreed the suit with costs against the defendants 1 to 3 by ordering partition of the schedule property into seven equal shares by metes and bounds and for allotment of three such shares to the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and three such shares to the defendants 1 to 3 besides delivery of possession; the remaining one such share shall be divided equally among all the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendants 1 to 3; and the defendants 4 and 5 can work'out their remedies in final decree petition to the extent of shares of defendants 1 to 3. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants 4 and 5 in the above said suit filed A.S.No.95 of 2015, whereas the plaintiffs filed cross-objections , on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Eluru. The learned Special Judge, POCSO Court, FACA/II Additional District Judge, Eluru, dismissed the appeal suit while considering the cross-objections, by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court with modification that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and VGKR, J. sa 108_2021 defendants 1 to 3 are entitled equally one such share each in respect of the Aggrieved thereby, the defendants 4 and 5 plaint schedule property, approached this Court by way of second appeal 5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit. 6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No. 157 of 2006, is as follows; (a) It is pleaded that one Samayamanthula Sarvayya was a resident of Madisettivaripalem Village in Chintalapudi Mandal of West Godavari District. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3 are his children. After the demise of his first wife Satyavathi, he got married the 4*^ plaintiff. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the defendant are his children born through his first wife, while the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are his children born through his second wife. (b) It IS further pleaded that the plaint schedule property is the self- acquired property of S. Sarvayya, who purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 10-9-1957 and possession was also delivered to him. He died intestate on 03-7-1982 leaving behind him, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 as his Class-1 heirs. When one Adapa Suryanarayana and his brothers trespassed into the schedule land, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 filed a suit in O.S.No.19 of 1985 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Eluru, for recovery of possession and for mesne profits and the said suit was decreed on 13-02-1996. The appeal preferred by the defendants in A.S.No;45 of 1996 on the file of 1 Additional District Judge’s Court, Eluru, was dismissed 21-8-1998 and later, the 4'*^ defendant preferred second appeal before S.A.No.744 of 1998 and the same was also dismissed on the High Court in on 23-9-1998. (c) It is further pleaded that thereafter, the plaintiffs and defendants 3 filed E.P.No.49 of 1996 and obtained delivery of possession of the 1 to 3 VGKR, J. ^ sa_108_2021 Since then, they have been in property through Court on 27-10-1998 possession and enjoyment of the schedule plaintiffs is a business family, they requested for sale of land. The defendants 1 the same to the plaintiffs property. The family of the the defendants 1 to 3 to arrange to 3 promised them that they would inform so that the land can be sold and sale [ be equally shared among them. The plaintiffs reposed confidence But, the defendants 1 to 3 cheated the proceeds can upon them. . plaintiffs. The defendants 1 to 3 also obtained thumb marks and signatures of the plaintiffs papers during the year 2001 on various blank stamp representing that they are required the same for the purpose of obtaining paftadar pass books and also for some other Court came to know that, the defendants 1 to 3 sold 4 and 5 and the 1^' defendant defendant and the defendants proceedings. The plaintiffs away the schedule property to the defendants appeared to have sold Ac.4-50 cents to the 4*'' 2 and 3 appeared to have sold Rs.4-92 cents of schedule property to the 5 defendant in the month of July, 2004. The said two sale deeds do not bind the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit. 7. The defendants 1 to 3 remained ex parte. 8. The defendants 4 and 5 filed written The brief averments in the written statement It is contended that the 1 statement before the trial Court, are as follows; defendant being absolute owner of the schedule property sold Ac.4-50 cents in R.S.No.l to the 4«'' defendant for sale consideration Of Rs.1,62,000/- under a registered sale deed on 12-7-2004. cents in favour of the 5*^ defendant sale consideration of Rs.2,27,500/- an extent of Ac.0-22 cents out of the under a registered sale deed, dated are bona fide transactions, property under the The defendants 2 and 4 sold Ac.4-92 under a registered sale deed for on 12-7-2004. The defendant sold schedule property to the 5*'^ defendant 13-7-2004, for Rs.9,000/-. The above transactions The defendants 4 and 5 are bona fide purchasers of the 4 VGKR, J. sa 108 2021 said sale deeds for valuable consideration. The plaintiffs have no right or share in the schedule property as the plaintiffs gave a declaration before the Revenue authorities to that effect stating that they relinquished their share in the property and that they do not claim any share in the property. By recognizing their possession and enjoyment over the schedule property, the Revenue authorities granted pattadar pass books and title deeds. The plaintiffs were never in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The defendants 4 and 5 believed that defendants 1 to 3 are behind the plaintiffs and filed the present suit with a view to gain wrongfully. They prayed to dismiss the suit with costs. 9. On the basis of above pleadings, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, framed the following issues for trial: (1) Did the plaintiffs relinquish their rights over the plaint schedule property as alleged in the written statement and is it valid relinquishment 2 (2) Whether the plaint schedule properties are available for partition and whether plaintiffs are entitled to seek partition ? (3) If the 2"'^ issue is in the affirmation, what are the rights of defendants 4 and 5 over the plaint schedule property ? (4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for future profits ? and (5) To what relief? 10. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked. On behalf of the defendants 4 and 5, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-14 were marked. 11. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, after conclusion of trial, on hearing the arguments of both sides and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendants 4 and 5 filed the appeal suit in A.S.No.95 of 2015 and the plaintiffs filed cross-objections on the file of the 5 VGKR, J. ' sa_108 2021 Judge, Family Court following points came up for consideration; cum VII Additional District Judge, Eluru, wherein the (i) Whether the plaintiffs got equal share along with defendants 1 to 3 ? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs relinquished in the plaint schedule property their right over the plaint schedule property as pleaded by the defendants 4 and 5 ? (iii) Whether the defendants 4 and 5 are the bona fide purchasers of the plaint schedule property ? (iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition as prayed for as per cross objections ? If so, to what extent of share ? (v) Whether the trial' Court committed any error in applying the provisions of law while allotting the shares as raised by the plaintiffs in the objections ? and cross- (vi) To what relief ? 12^ The learned Special Judge, POCSO Court, FACA/II Additional District Judge, Eluru, i.e.. the first appellate Judge, after hearing the arguments, answered the points, as above, against the defendants 4 and 5 and dismissed the appeal suit filed by the defendants 4 and 5, while considering the cross-objections filed by the plaintiffs, by decreeing the suit with certain modification. Felt aggrieved of the same, the defendants 4 and 5 in O.S.No.157 of 2006 filed the present second appeal before this Court. 13. On hearing both side counsels at the time of second appeal on 28-4-2021, this Court framed questions of law; admission of the the following substantial (a) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for partition of the suit schedule property is maintainable without seeking the relief of cancellation of the sale deeds dated 12-7-2004 executed by defendants 1 to 3 and suit schedule property from the without seeking possession of the appellants/defendants4 and 5 ? and (b) Whether the judgment and decrees of the Courts below can be justified v^fen the appellants/defendants 4 and 5 are the bona fide purchasers of the 6 VGKR, J. sa_108_2021 suit schedule property for valuable consideration under Exs.B-3 and B-4 from defendants 1 to 3, particularly when the plaintiffs have instituted the suit in collusion with the defendants 1 to 3 with unclean hands to deprive the appellants from claiming the suit schedule property under Exs.B-3 and B-4 ? The following additional substantial questions of law were framed by this Court on 03-9-2025; (1) Whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the suit without formulating an issue whether there was any partition as stated under Exs.B-3 and B-4 sale deeds or not ? and (2) Whether the Courts below are justified in decreeing the suit for partition when the defendants 4 and 5 are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration based on the possession of defendants 1 to 3 and pattadar pass books issued in favour of defendants 1 to 3 and when possession delivered to the defendants 4 and 5 based on Exs.B-3 and B-4 by defendants 1 to 3 ? was 14. Heard Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel, representing --- isa'-ned counce! for the appellants/dsfendants 4 and 5 and Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/ plaintiffs 1 to 3. Qf-; T « Q I I I 15. Law is well settled that under Section 100 of CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate Court which is the final Court of facts except in such cases where such findings erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence. In the case of Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh\ the Apex Court held were as follows: “The High Court was certainly entitled to go into the question as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate Court which was the final Court of / AIR 1993 SC 398 7 VGKR, J. sa_108_2021 fact were vitiated in the eye of law on account of non-consideration of admissible evidence of vital nature.” In the case of Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar^, the Apex Court held as follows: “The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the first appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate Court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence.” or 16. The undisputed facts are that the plaintiffs 1 to 4 filed the suit against the defendants 1 to 5 for seeking the relief of partition of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the defendants 1 to 3 are the children of one Samayamanthula Sarvayya and after the demise of his 1®* wife Satyavathi, he got married the 4*'' plaintiff. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the 1®' defendant are his children born through his 1®‘ wife, while the 3'"'^ plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3 are his children born through his 2"^^ The relationship in between both the parties is not in dispute. P.W.1 is the plaintiff. Ex.A-1 clearly goes to show that the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3 filed the suit in O.S.No.19 of 1985 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Eluru, seeking the relief of recovery of possession against third parties as legal heirs of late Sarvayya, who died intestate on 03-7-1982 and who purchased the schedule property on 10-9-1-957. Furthermore, the said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and first appeal was filed against which, second appeal has been filed before this Court. In the first appeal and second appeal, the plaintiffs herein succeeded. Ex.A-2 certified copy of the suit register extract in O.S.No.19 of 1985 contains reference about the registered sale deed dated 10-9-1957 in the name of the father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3, and the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3 obtained delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property through Court in vv I j a. AIR 1999 SC 471 8 VGKR, J. sa 108 2021 execution proceedings. Exs.A-1 and A-2 go to show that the father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3 purchased the plaint schedule property from Vangapati Venkata Rami Reddy and two others on 10-9-1957 itself and it is also an admitted fact that the father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3, by name Samayamanthula Sarvayya, died intestate on 03-7-1982 and the wife of Sarvayya i.e., the 4**^ plaintiff herein died during the pendency of first appeal. The defendants 4 and 5 are none other than the wife and husband, they are the purchasers of plaint-A schedule property purchased on the same date in the year 2004 from the defendants 1 to 3. 17. The learned Senior Counsel for appellants would contend that a simple suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition of the plaint schedule property is not at all maintainable without seeking the relief of cancellation of sale deeds under the originals of Exs.B-3 and B-4, dated 12-7-2004 and without seeking possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants 4 and 5. it is undisputed by both the oarties that t^^e niaint schedule property is self-acquired property of the father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3, who purchased the same under a registered sale deed on 10-9-1957 and he died intestate on 03-7-1982. It is also undisputed that when third parties trespassed into the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 filed the suit vide O.S.No.19 of 1985 as legal representatives of late Sarvayya before Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Eluru and they succeeded up to the High Court in second appeal proceedings and obtained possession of the plaint schedule property in execution of the decree. Ex.B-3 goes to show that the 1®‘ defendant alienated part of the plaint schedule property in favour of the 4*^ defendant. Ex. B-4 goes to show that the defendants 2 and 3 executed a registered sale deed under Ex.B-4 in respect of the remaining plaint schedule property. The recitals in Exs.B-3 and B-4 go to show that in the sale deed itself, the vendors have mentioned that the schedule properties are joint family property and after demise of their father, In thp rase hanr) r 9 VGKR, J. sa_108_2021 defendants-1 to 3 i.e. sons only orally partitioned the same. The recitals in Exs.B-3 and B-4 sale deeds themselves go to show that the defendants • 1 to 3, by leaving their sisters who are Class-I heirs, alienated the plaint schedule property to the defendants 4 and 5. 18. The learned Senior Counsel for appellants relied on Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Section 31(1) of the Specific Relief Act says: “31. When cancellation may be ordered.—(1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may. in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. (2) Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act itself makes clear that the word used in Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act is “may sue” but not “shall sue” and option is given to the plaintiffs, if is not rnanHgfory fo file a suit fnr cancellation of sale deed, moreover the plaintiffs are not parties to the sale deeds Exs.B-3 and B-4. The plaint schedule property is a joint family property of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3 and all are Class-1 legal heirs of late S. Sarvayya, who died intestate on 03-7-1982. Therefore, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 are having joint right itself in the suit schedule property since their father died intestate since they, being Class-1 legal heirs of their father, are having joint rights in the plaint schedule property on par with the sons of late S. Sarvayya. Therefore, the sale deeds Exs.B-3 and B-4 obtained by defendants 4 and 5 are not binding on plaintiffs 1 to 3 to the extent of their share. 19. Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 reiterated as • follows: 6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property. — (1) (2) 10 VGKR, J. sa_108 2021 (3) (4) (5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to effected before the 20th day of December, 2004”. a partition, which has been Admittedly, in the case on hand, no registered partition was happened in between the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3 prior to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and no decree for partition was obtained by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3 prior to 20-12-2004. As stated supra, the father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 03-7-1982, by leaving the plaintiffs and to 3 died intestate on defendants 1 to 3 as legal are Class-1 legal heirs property with his own representatives. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3 of late S. Sarvayya, who purchased the plaint schedule self-earnings on 10-9-1957 and died intestate on 03-7-1982. It is quite clear that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3, children of Sarvayya, were born prior to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 enables the The Hindu daughters to exercise their i.e. plaintiffs IS no oral partition or registered partition in 1 to 3 and the plaint schedule property is the self-acquired property of their father, who died intestate 03-7-1982. co-parcenery right and co-parcenery is a birth right to daughters 1 to 3 herein. Admittedly, there between the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants on 20. In the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma^, the Apex Court held as follows; a Full Bench of 129. (i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities. (II) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2006 with savings as provided in Section-6(1) as to the disposition or ^ AIR 2020 SC 3717 11 VGKR, J. sa 108 2021 alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004. (iii) Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2006. (iv) The statutory fiction of partition created by proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when he was survived by a female heir, of Class I as specified in the Schedule to the Act of 1956 or male relative of such female. The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal, (v) In view of the rigor of provisions of Explanation to Section 6(5) of the Act of 1956, a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the statutory recognised mode of partition effected by a deed of partition duly registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where olea of oral oartition is suoDorted by public documents and partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been affected by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly.” In the case at hand, the plaint schedule property is the self-acquired property of the father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3, who purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 10-9-1957 and later, he died intestate on 03-7-1982, by leaving the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff i.e. the 2"^^ wife of Sarvayya died during the pendency of first appeal. Therefore, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3 are having equal joint rights in undivided plaint schedule property. In the case at hand, there is no oral or registered partition or a decree of partition in between the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiffs 1 to 4/daughters and wife of late Sarvayya approached the civil Court in the year 2006 for seeking the relief of partition of the plaint schedule property. As noticed supra, the 4 plaintiff i e. 12 VGKR, J, sa_108_2021 the 2" wife of Sarvayya died intestate during the pendency of first appeal. The defendants 4 and 5 have not obtained Exs.B-3 and B-4 sale deeds from the plaintiffs 1 to 3 along with defendants 1 sale deeds are not binding on plaintiffs 1 to 3 (daughters) to the extent of their share and plaintiffs 1 to 3 (daughters) can simpiy ignore the said sale deeds Exs.B-3 and B-4 to the extent of their shares, but sale deeds under Exs.B-3 and B-4 are binding on defendants 1 to 3 (sons) to the extent of their In the case at hand, the to 3. Therefore, Exs.B-3 and B-4 share. sons of late S. Sarvayya alienated the plaint schedule are Class-I heirs of late Sarvayya, under Therefore, the said alienations under property by leaving their sisters who Exs.B-3 and B-4 registered sale deeds. Exs.B-3 and B-4 sale deeds are not valid transactions or not binding on the daughters/plaintiffs to the extent of their share 21. The learned Senior Counsel for Eda Mary v. Yedia Elzebeth Rant. The facts in the aforesaid case piainufi is a minor on me date of its appellants placed reliance on are by execution ihe date of saie deed, trie z and the 1 plaintiff in that suit was not a party to the sale deed though she a major, as the 2"" plaintiff was a minor, the 2"“ defendant acted and executed the said sale deed. was as guardian Therefore, the facts and circumstances in that case law are different to the instant case. 22. The learned Senior Counsel for appellants placed reliance a judgment of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case of Kasireddy Ramayamma v. Kasireddy Rama Rao\ The facts the said case law on in are that the transaction under Ex.AI complete and absolute rights had already flowed remained in late Pothu Naidu to make settlement deed is and vested and nothing any cancellation as such through Ex.B2 and there is no fraud or mi The facts in the aforesaid misrepresentation in the execution of Ex.AI case law are quite different to the instant case. ^ MANU/HY/0478/2018 MANU/AP/0551/1999 13 VGKR, J sa 108 2021 The ratio laid down in the aforesaid’ case law is very plea of fraud, misrepresentation etc., are not sustainable in the absence of a suit filed challenging the document, whereas the facts in the present case are different to the case law relied by the learned Senior Counsel for appellants. 23. The learned Senior Counsel for appellants relied on M. Meenakshi V. Metadin Agarwal (Dead) by lRs^. In that decision, the Apex Court held as follows: “18. It is a well-settlad principle of law that even a void order is required to be set aside by a competent court of law inasmuch as an order may be void in respect of one person but may be valid in respect of another. A void order is necessarily not non est. An order cannot be declared to be void in a collateral proceeding and that too in the absence of the authorities who were the authors thereof. The orders passed by the authorities were not found to be wholly without jurisdiction. They were not, thus, nullities." The facts in the aforesaid case law are that the competent authority under the 1976 Act was not impleaded as a party in that suit and during the pendency of the proceedings under the 1976 Act, parties entered into agreement of sale of land, subject to permission of the competent authority the competent authority refused permission on the ground that excess an and land of the size stipulated in the contract was not available and the competent authority under the 1976 Act was not impleaded as a party in that suit. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law is not at all applicable to the present case on hand, since the facts and circumstances in the case at hand are different to the case law relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for appellants. 24. The learned Senior Counsel for appellants would contend that both the defendants 4 and 5 are bona fide purchasers of the suit schedule property defendants 1 to 3 and that the judgment and decree passed by both from the ® (2006) 7 see 470 14 VGKR, J. sa 108 2021 the Courts below are unsustainable under law. The recitals in Exs.B-3 and sale deeds themselves show that the plaint schedule property is undivided joint family property of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3, which is a self- of their father and he died intestate on 03-7-1982, B-4 acquired property by leaving the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3 as Class-I legal heirs, sons/defendants 1 to 3 by leaving Class-I legal heirs daughters/plaintiffs The 1 to 3, alienated the total plaint schedule property to the defendants 4 and 5. Furthermore, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 obtained the possession through a Court of law when trespassers entered into the plaint schedule property as the same is visible in the sale deeds itself, but the defendants 4 and 5/purchasers, for the reasons best known to them, did not insist the plaintiffs 1 to 3 to join as parties along with defendants 1 to 3 in Exs.B-3 and B-4 sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendants 4 and 5 are bona fide purchasers to the extent.of undivided share of daughters of late S. Sarvayya/plaintiffs 1 to 3. 25. The learned Senior Counsel for appellants would contend that the plaintiffs have given up their rights over the plaint schedule property under a letter alleged to have been addressed by them and that now, the plaintiffs cannot claim their share in the plaint schedule property. The recitals of copy of letter are not yet admitted by the plaintiffs and the signatures are only marked as Exs.B-1 and B-2. Moreover, original letters are not yet filed by the appellants and not marked as exhibits. The documentary evidence filed by the plaintiffs itself goes to show that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 filed a suit for possession against third parties, who trespassed into the schedule after the death of their father and they succeeded up to the second property, appeal proceedings and they obtained possession through Court of law the sale deeds itself. In fact, the suit particulars were also mentioned in But, the defendants 4 and 5/purchasers have not evinced any interest to insist the defendants 1 to 3 to join plaintiffs 1 to 3 together with defendants 1 to 3 as 15 VGKR, J. sa_108 2021 vendors. Therefore, the said sale deeds are not binding on the daughters/ - P aintiffs 1 to 3, the daughters can simply ignore the said sale deeds and they need not ask for cancellation of sale deeds. 26. Copy of consent letter cannot be considered In law to be a relinquishment of piaintiffs’ rights, title and interest in the suit scheduie property. The said consent letter might have been given for the purpose of entering the name of defendants 1 to 3 in the Revenue records. The said consent letter would not amount to relinquishment of right, title interest of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule property and letter was not believed by both the Courts below, relinquishment would and even the said consent Any deed of require registration as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. relinquishment, which has been In the absence of there being any deed of registered in accordance with law, it cannot be held that the plaintiffs have pi scheduie property. given up their right, title and interest in the plaint 27. The learned Senior Counsel for appellants the Courts below ignored the evidence of D.W.2, who ' he deposed that would contend that both of D.W.2. As seen from the evidence was working as a Special Deputy Tahsildar, Chintalapudi. a common statement dated 29-11-2001 of the defendants and plaintiffs was there in their office along with notarized affidavits 19-4-2001 dated were returned to them on 22-01-2007 furnishing sworn affidavit by the 1=> defendant. In cross-examination, D.W.2 admitted that their office file did not contain signatures of party for taking return of the original of the common statement and notarized affidavits, referred evidence of D.W.2 itself is above. Therefore, the no way helpful to prove the defence of defendants 4 and 5. Furthermore, the alleged original affidavits have been given by the plaintiffs, or letters, alleged to were not produced before both the Courts below and also in the second appeal proceedings and those 16 VGKR, J. sa_108_2021 As stated supra, any deed of relinquishment would require registration as per Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, in the absence of there being any deed of registere it cannot be held that the plaintiffs the plaint schedule property. 17 .of the Registration Act document under which any party acquires any right contrary procedure can be adopted. not marked as exhibits. documents were relinquishment in accordance with law have given up their right, title and interest in 28. The law is well settled that Section mandates registration of a or loses any right, no The learned Senior Counsel for appellants would contend that behalf of defendants 1 to 3 only and 29. books were issued on books were issued in favour of the plaintiffs and that the relief of partition of the plaint schedule property. pattadar pass no pattadar pass plaintiffs are not entitled to the The law is well settled that mutation of Revenue records does not take or extinguish any title and those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue. The legal position in this regard is no been well settled by the Apex Court in the case more Integra and the same has of Sawarni v. Inder Kauf as under. res record does not create or title. It only enables the Mutation of a property in the revenue 7. extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment.’ on in favour. This erroneous 30. On appreciation of the entire evidence on ■ Judge as well as the that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 are entitled to schedule property. The general rule concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is record, the learned trial learned first appellate Judge arrived at concurrent finding the relief of partition of the plaint is that High Court will not interfere with is not an absolute rule. Some "(1996) 6 see 223 17 VGKR, J. sa__108_2021 Of the well recognized exceptions or acted on are where (i) the courts below no evidence; (ii) the proved facts by applying the law material evidence have ignored wrong courts not come courts have drawn inferences from have erroneously; or (Hi) the present case does supra. wrongly cast the burden within the ambit of aforesaid Of proof. The exceptions as stated 31. In the record, the learned plaintiffs and decided by the trial case at hand, on appreciation of the entire trial Judge decreed the suit for appreciation of the entire Court and after framing - of C.P.C., the learned appeal, in the light of the earnest oonsideration now, i, (s manifest that the 'nc'uding the additional substantial evidence on partition filed by the on all issues on re evidence on record the points for required under Section 96 dismissed the first consideration first appellate Judge rightly record and upon as material on substantial questions of law questions of law raised in the hearing in the second course of appeal on behalf of the consideration. This Court not involve any substantial appellants did not arise or second appeal did remain for IS satisfied that this question of law for determination. 32. In the Ihe judgment applications, if the second appeal. result, the and decree second appeal is dismissed, appellate Court. Each party do bear their confirming Pending own costs in passed by the first any, shall stand closed. Sd/-VDIWAKAR DEPUTYhREGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The VII Additional District Judge. Eluru, West Godavari District records if any) 2. The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) District. 3. One CC to Sri Turaga Sai Surya, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) 6. Two CD Copies (with Eluru, West Godavari at TK * HIGH COURT DATED:10/09/2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE SA No.108 of 2021 18 SEP 20?5 ’ i^CyrrentSectjjiJ.^* [.f c.‘ > DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL