Date of pronouncement : 13.07.2026 Date of uploading : 13.07.2026 APHC010318432026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] MONDAY, THE 13th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO: 333/2026 Between: Kallam Prabhakara Reddy ...APPELLANT AND Gungumogula Suryachandra Rao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. MEDAPATI SANTOSH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KARRE SATYANANDAM The Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.333 of 2026 JUDGMENT: This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellant/Defendant No.5 challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 11.03.2026, in O.S.No.9 of 2013 passed by the learned IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur [for short ‘the trial Court’]. 2. The appellant herein is the defendant No.5, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs and the respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein are the defendant Nos.1 to 4. 3. Originally, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.9 of 2013 filed the suit against the defendants, seeking for partition of the plaint schedule properties into 18 equal shares and allotment of 14 such shares to them (7 shares each), along with separate possession, costs and mesne profits. 4. Both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. 5. The case of the plaintiffs as per the plaint averments in O.S.No.9 of 2013, in brief, is as follows: I. The plaintiffs pleaded that they both are brothers, defendant No.1 is their mother and defendants Nos.2 to 4 are their sisters and they all are the legal heirs of late Gundumogula Venkateswara Rao. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties belonging to the plaintiffs and their father, late Gundumogula Venkateswara Rao and during their minority, their father, acting as their natural guardian, sold the joint family land in R.S.No.3/1 admeasuring Ac.0.40 cents under a registered Sale Deed dated 17.12.1973 and also alienated an RCC building situated at Vuradallapalem Village, Attili Mandal, under a registered Sale Deed dated 26.08.1983. The plaintiffs further pleaded that out of the sale consideration realized from the aforesaid ancestral properties, items Nos.1 to 5 and 7 of the plaint schedule properties situated at Taduvayi Village and Bhadrachalam were purchased in the name of their father. The plaintiffs further pleaded that although items Nos.6 and 7 of the plaint schedule properties stand in the name of defendant No.1, their mother, the said properties were also purchased out of the joint family nucleus and, therefore, they constitute joint family properties. II. The plaintiffs further pleaded that during the lifetime of late Gundumogula Venkateswara Rao, each of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 was entitled to an undivided 1/3rd share in the joint family properties and upon the death of late Gundumogula Venkateswara Rao on 29.07.1992 as intestate, his 1/3rd share devolved upon his legal heirs, namely, the plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 and the defendants Nos.1 to 4. The plaintiffs further pleaded that defendants Nos.1 to 4, in collusion with defendant No.5, executed a nominal and collusive registered Sale Deed dated 17.03.2012 in respect of items Nos.1 to 3 and a part of item No.5 of the plaint schedule properties by falsely claiming that defendant No.1 had acquired title to the said properties under a Will executed by late Gundumogula Venkateswara Rao. The plaintiffs further pleaded that their father never executed any such Will and the said registered Sale Deed dated 17.03.2012, is fabricated and the same is not binding on them. As such, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit. 6. The defendant No.1 filed the written statement and the same was adopted by the defendant Nos.2 and 3. The case of the defendant No.1 as per the written statement is as follows: I. The defendant No.1 pleaded that items Nos.1 to 5 and 7 of the plaint schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of her husband, late Gundumogula Venkateswara Rao, whereas items Nos.6 and 8 are her exclusive properties acquired out of her ‘stridhana’ and personal amounts. The defendant No.1 further pleaded that her husband used to run a hotel business in the name and style of ‘Saibaba Hotel’ at Bhadrachalam and earned substantial income from it. The defendant No.1 further pleaded that her husband purchased items Nos.1 to 5 and 7 of the plaint schedule properties from his own earnings and items Nos.6 and 8 were purchased exclusively out of her ‘stridhana’ amounts and personal earnings. The defendant No.1 further pleaded that she alienated an extent of Ac.1.00 out of Ac.1.78 cents covered under item No.6 of the plaint schedule property in favour of one Papula Durga Rao on 26.11.1998 and that the said vendee is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The defendant No.1 further pleaded that plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 are residing in the house covered under item No.8 of the plaint schedule properties, whereas defendants Nos.1 to 3 are residing in the house covered under item No.7. II. The defendant No.1 further pleaded that after the death of her husband, she performed the marriages of plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.4 with the financial assistance of her brother, Pranay Rao. The defendant No.1 further pleaded that late Gundumogula Venkateswara Rao, along with plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2, had alienated the ancestral land admeasuring Ac.0.40 cents situated at Vuradallapalem Village under a registered Sale Deed dated 17.12.1973, registered as Document No.2878/1973, in favour of M.Venkatrao for a consideration of Rs.2,500/- and put him in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The defendant No.1 further pleaded that the plaintiffs themselves sold the properties purchased in their names and appropriated the sale consideration for their individual benefit. The defendant No.1 further pleaded that late Gundumogula Venkateswara Rao, while in a sound and disposing state of mind, executed a registered Will dated 10.02.1988 bequeathing the plaint schedule properties in favour of defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 further pleaded that in exercise of the rights conferred upon her under the said Will and for the purpose of discharging family debts, maintaining the family and meeting the marriage expenses of plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.4, defendant No.1 alienated several items of the plaint schedule properties in favour of defendant No.5 under a registered Sale Deed dated 17.03.2012 for a valid consideration of Rs.17,83,500/- and delivered possession thereof. The defendant No.1 further pleaded that the defendant No.5 is a bona fide purchaser for value and has been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties from the date of purchase and as such, requested for dismissal of the suit with costs. 7. The defendant No.4 remained ex-parte before the trial Court. The defendant No.5 filed a written statement and the case of the defendant No.5 as per the written statement is as follows: I. The defendant No.5 pleaded that the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek partition of the plaint schedule properties into eighteen (18) equal shares or to claim allotment of fourteen (14) shares to them as claimed by the plaintiffs. The defendant No.5 further pleaded that he has no personal knowledge regarding the relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants Nos.1 to 4 as stated in the plaint and, therefore, the plaintiffs are put to strict proof of the same. The defendant No.5 denied that the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties of the plaintiffs and late Gundumogula Venkateswara Rao. The defendant No.5 further pleaded that the defendant No.1 derived valid title to the properties under a registered Will dated 10.02.1988 executed by her husband, late Gundumogula Venkateswara Rao, who had acquired the said properties from his own earnings and after the death of her husband, the defendant No.1 became the absolute owner of the said properties. II. The defendant No.5 further pleaded that on the date of executionof the sale deed, possession of the property was delivered to him and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since then as a bona fide purchaser for value. The defendant No.5 further pleaded that his name was mutated in the records and the defendant No.5 is paying land revenue to the Government and as such, requested for dismissal of the suit with costs. 8. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties and are liable to partition? 2) To what relief? 9. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-10 were marked. 10. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit in part vide its judgment, dated 11.03.2026, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant No.5 in the suit. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the trial Court failed to consider the evidence of D.W.4. He would further contend that the trial Court had not even refer to the evidence of D.W.4 in its judgment and pronounced the judgment. He would further contend that both the attesting witnesses to Ex.B-10 Will and the scribe of Ex.B-10 Will had died by the time of trial, and the defendants examined the son of one of the attestors to the Ex.B-10 Will as D.W.4, and he would further contend that the trial Court did not even discuss the evidence of D.W.4 and pronounced the judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court, and the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court for deciding the issue on the point of the Will. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs fairly conceded that the trial Court had not even referred to the evidence of D.W.4 in its judgment, and if this Court is inclined to remand back the matter to the trial Court, a time limit may be fixed for the trial Court to hear both sides and to pronounce the judgment on merits, and there is no need to conduct an additional trial by the trial Court. 13. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri Medapati Santhosh Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri Karre Satyanandam, learned counsel for the respondents. 14. Now, in deciding the present appeal, the point that arise for determination is as follows: 1) Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court needs any interference? 15. Point No.1: Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court needs any interference? The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that both the attestors to Ex.B-10 Will and the scribe of Ex.B-10 Will were no more by the time of trial and that the appellant examined the son of the second attestor to Ex.B-10 Will as D.W.4, but the trial Court did not refer to the evidence of D.W.4 in its judgment and did not even discuss the evidence of D.W.4 in its judgment and pronounced the judgment. The learned counsel for the respondents fairly conceded that the appellant herein examined the son of one of the attestors to Ex.B-10 Will as D.W.4 and the trial Court did not even discuss the evidence of D.W.4 in its judgment and did not even refer to the name of D.W.4 in the appendix of evidence in the judgment of the trial Court. 16. As seen from the judgment of the trial Court, in Paragraph No.21 of the judgment of the trial Court, the trial Court observed that “Ex.B-10 Will was attested by G.Veerraju and Balaswamy but none of the attesting witnesses were examined and the Will is not proved”. The contention of the appellant herein is that by the time of commencement of trial before the trial Court, the attestors and the scribe of the Will were deceased. Therefore, examining the attestors of the Will and the scribe of the Will does not arise. The certified copy of the deposition of D.W.4 was filed by the appellant along with the grounds of appeal. The evidence of D.W.4 clearly goes to show that he is the son of one of the attestors to Ex.B-10 Will, and D.W.4 was also cross- examined by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs before the trial Court, but the trial Court did not even refer to the evidence of D.W.4 in its judgment and also did not mention the name of D.W.4 in the appendix of the judgment. Unfortunately, the trial Court has not at all touched the evidence of D.W.4 and also did not discuss the evidence of D.W.4 in its judgment. Therefore, the interest of justice requires that the matter has to be remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to the trial Court to frame the relevant issue and to give opportunity to both the parties to submit the arguments of both sides' counsels on the additional issue to be framed in accordance with law and dispose of the same on merits. 18. For this purpose, this Court sets out the following additional issue to be decided by the trial Court in addition to the issues framed by the trial Court: I. Whether Ex.B-10 Will is proved in accordance with law? 19. Accordingly, the present appeal suit is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2026, passed in O.S.No.9 of 2013 by the learned IX Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to frame an additional issue set up supra by this Court and to give an opportunity to both the parties to submit their arguments on the additional issue as stated supra by this Court and, after hearing the arguments, pass the judgment on merits without being influenced by the findings in its earlier judgment dated 11.03.2026. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed __________________________ V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. Date: 13.07.2026 SRT Whether the order is: Speaking ☑ Reasoned Reportable Non-reportable ☑