IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

APPEAL SUIT No.191 of 2000

(CNR.No: HBHC010337272000)

Date. 01.10.2026

Reserved on : 02.07.2026

Pronounced on : 01.10.2026

Uploaded on : 01.10.2026

Between:

Yeddula Muthyalamma and others

…Appellants/Plaintiffs

AND

Yeddula Jaipal Reddy and another

…Defendants/Respondents

: JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri C.Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants

and Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri

Ajay Kumar Kulkarni, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the

appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2, aggrieved by the Judgment

and Decree dated 01.12.1999 passed in O.S.No.1 of 1994 by

2

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

the learned Senior Civil Judge, at Nagarkurnool (for short ‘the

trial Court’)

3. The underlying suit was filed by the plaintiffs for

partition of schedule properties and to grant separate

possession, which was decreed by granting their respective

shares in the Schedule-A,B,C,D properties. Aggrieved by the

same, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have preferred the present

appeal.

4. The parties are addressed herein, as they were arrayed in

the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the suit is filed by the

plaintiffs for partition of schedule-A, B, C, D properties,

claiming them to be ancestral and joint family properties.

Plaintiff No.1 is the mother, plaintiff No.2 is youngest son and

defendant No.1 is the eldest son, plaintiff No.3 is the daughter

of plaintiff No.1 and one Sri Yeddula Yella Reddy, who died on

09.09.1989, plaintiff No.4 is the wife of plaintiff No.2 and

defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1.

3

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

6. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one, Sri Yeddula Yella

Reddy who was the original pattedar and absolute owner of the

schedule properties expired on 09.09.1989 intestate and the

properties being ancestral and joint family properties, devolved

upon the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1, being the only

surviving legal heirs, as such they are entitled to claim

respective shares over the suit schedule property. It is stated

that plaintiff No.1 who is the mother, expired during the

pendency of the suit on 17.03.1996, by executing a Will Deed,

bearing Document No.16/95, dated 02.11.1995 in favour of

younger son i.e., plaintiff No.2, as such, the share, which was

accrued to in the schedule properties was bequeathed by the

plaintiff No.1 by a registered Will Deed got devolved upon

plaintiff No.2. It is further stated that the plaintiffs and

defendants constituted the Hindu Mithakshara Joint Family,

and the properties being ancestral, joint family properties, they

have equal coparcenerary rights over the suit schedule lands.

7. It is the claim of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.2 i.e., the

youngest son, who was residing with the father during his life

time, acted as the Kartha of the joint family nucleus on behalf

4

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

of the father and since, 1970 he was managing the affairs of

the joint family, and during the said period neither the

defendant No.1 being the eldest son, nor the defendant No.2-

his wife have contributed any funds to the joint family

nucleus, out of their personal needs and more so, the

defendant No.1 lived away from Manthati Village, due to his

employment. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that

defendant No.1 never contributed any personal income to the

joint family, and was involved in the joint family affairs at any

point of time and as such, he was not sharing the common

mess of the joint family and all the schedules including B-

schedule properties, though purchased on the name of

defendant No.1(one of B property) and plaintiff No.4 and

defendant No.2 (other B property) are purchased from joint

family funds.

8. It is further contended that on the other hand, the

plaintiff No.2 was doing Contract works since 1972 in

Panchayat Raj Department, and as such, he contributed to

purchase B and D schedule properties, and also got deepened

one old well and erected 5-HP current motor and further

5

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

dugged two new wells and erected 5-HP current motors to

them and also developed the agricultural source of income of

joint family. It is further stated that the common ancestor

i.e., late Sri Yeddula Yella Reddy was possessing ancestral

property, fallen to his share during his partition among his

brothers about 40 years ago, which is also shown in the

schedule of properties. It is further contended that during the

life time of late Yeddula Yella Reddy, father of plaintiff No.2 and

defendant No.1 possessed one residential house, vacant place

which is also joint family property.

9. It is further stated that the marriage of plaintiff No.3 i.e.,

the daughter of Yeddula Yella Reddy was performed during

the period 1966-1967 by late Yeddula Yella Reddy with active

assistance of plaintiff No.2 and marriage of the defendant

No.1 was performed with the defendant No.2 in the year 1970

and due to continuous marriages in the family, their family

became weak financially in the year 1970, and when the family

was very badly in need of money, as the amounts were also

necessary for employment of defendant No.1, a part of land in

Sy.No.2 was sold to one Kummari Lingaiah and others for a

6

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

valid sale consideration. Though it was an oral sale, the said

property was not included in the schedule of properties, since

it was already under the possession of the said persons.

10. It is further stated that, since the properties were

mutated in favour of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and defendant No.1 on

which an Appeal was preferred before the RDO, Nagarkurnool,

who in turn, remitted the matter to the Tahasildar for fresh

disposal, and thereafter all properties were mutated in favour

of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and defendant No.1 and in respect of B-

schedule the Tahasildar has advised to approach the Civil

Court, as such, the underlying suit was filed for partition of all

the properties by metes and bounds.

11. It is also the case of the plaintiff that since the plaintiff

No.1 expired during the pendency of the suit, as she executed

Registered Will Deed in favour of plaintiff No.2, bequeathing

her share in the schedule properties the respective share

should be allotted to the share of plaintiff No.2 along with his

respective share in A, B, C, D Schedule properties with metes

and bounds, as all the schedule properties are joint family

7

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

properties which are in joint possession and enjoyment of the

parties, which were not subject to any previous partition,

during the life time of their father. Therefore, the present suit

was filed for allotment of respective shares by partitioning the

suit schedule properties i.e., A, B, C, D.

12. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a common written

statement admitting their relationship with the plaintiffs and

the death of Yeddula Yella Reddy, who was their father. It is

also admitted that their common ancestor of the parties, Sri

Yella Reddy was in possession of ancestral properties including

one residential house and a vacant site got in the partition

among his brothers, and after his demise, the plaintiffs and

defendants constituted a Hindu Mitakshara Joint Family and

thus the family possessed ancestral coparcenary and joint

family properties and that Sri Yeddula Yella Reddy also

acquired. However, they specifically denied the claim that

plaintiff No. 2 acted as the Manager/Kartha of the joint family

since 1970. They also specifically denied that plaintiff No.2

had purchased Schedule-B and D properties through his own

funds and efforts as claimed by him. On the contrary, it is

8

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

contended that the defendant No.1 worked as an Employee in

Panchayat Raj Department since, 1970, he had sufficient

funds to purchase B-schedule property, specifically stated that

Schedule-B is self acquired property of defendant No.1 as the

same was purchased through his personal funds and as such,

got Registered Sale Deeds in his own name (one property in B-

schedule) and also in favour of defendant No.2 and plaintiff

No.4 (wife of plaintiff No.2-other property in B-schedule). They

further denied that defendant No.1 has not contributed his

personal income towards the joint family. It is alleged that the

plaintiff No.2, in collusion with the vendees, caused wrongful

loss to all the parties jointly. As such, defendant No.1

instituted suit in O.S.No.16 of 1993 for Recovery of Possession.

13. It is further case of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 that

during the life time of their father-defendant No.1 himself

obtained loans from the Agricultural Development Bank in the

year 1986, for development of agriculture by duly obtaining

signature of plaintiff No.2 as per Bank rules. It is contended

that after death of their father Sri Yella Reddy, the plaintiff

No.2 sold some trees and others belonged to joint family

9

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

properties and caused some wrongful loss to the joint family. It

is specifically pleaded that the Schedule-B is not joint family

property and it is exclusive self acquired property of defendant

No.1, which is not liable for partition and thus, defendant No.1

was looking after the affairs of the joint family, whenever need

arises.

14. Further, on 20.10.1998, the defendant No.1 filed

additional written statement, admitting death of plaintiff No.1

on 17.03.1996, but specifically denied the execution of

Registered Will Deed No.16/95, dated 02.11.1995 bequeathing

her entire share in the suit schedule properties to the plaintiff

No.2. In sum and substance, the defendant No.1 has

specifically denied the right accrued to the plaintiff No.2 by

virtue of Will Deed, executed by plaintiff No.1 (mother).

Further, it is the case of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 that

schedule B property is a self acquired property of defendant

Nos.1 and 2, as the same is purchased out of his personal

funds.

15. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned trial Court

framed the following issues.

10

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for

partition of plaint A, B and C Schedule

Properties and for possession of the same as

prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree

with regard to plaint D Schedule property as

prayed for?

3. To what relief?”

16. Subsequently, since amended plaint was filed

consequent upon the death of plaintiff No.1 (mother), and

additional written statement was filed on 24.10.1998 by

defendant Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the following additional

issue was framed:

“Whether late Yeddula Muthyalamma had executed

registered Will Deed dated 02-11-1995 during her life

time bequeathing the entire her share in the suit

schedule property to the 2

nd plaintiff?”

17. The plaintiffs have examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked

Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 was

examined and Exs.B1 to B8 were marked.

OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT :-

18. The learned trial Court Judge, after conducting a proper

enquiry, hearing both sides, and considering the pleadings and

evidence of both sides along with the cross examination, has

11

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

specifically held that the Schedule-A, C and D properties have

been accepted to be ancestral properties by defendants Nos.1

and 2, and as such, has allowed the claim of the plaintiffs to

that extent. In so far as the Schedule-B property, where the

defendant No.1 has specifically pleaded that they are the self

acquired properties of the defendant No.1, in the light of the

Ex.B1(A4) and Ex.B2 (A5), since they are all registered in the

name of defendant No.1 (one property in B-schedule), and

jointly in the name of defendant No.2 and plaintiff No.4 (other

property in B-schedule) as it is contended that those are the

self acquired properties of defendants, the learned trial Court

judge having appreciated the evidence of DW1 and his specific

admission that till the death of their father Sri Yeddula Yella

Reddy and the marriage of the plaintiff No.3 and till the filing

of the suit, the joint family nucleus was in existence, and in

the absence of any specific evidence to show the said property

was purchased by self earnings of defendant No.1, and that

since the defendant No.1 has only pleaded in respect of A-

schedule property as ancestral property, but only disputed

that it is only mentioned as Ac.0-18 guntas instead of total

12

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

extent of Ac.0-33 guntas and that plaintiff No.2 has wrongly

sold an extent of Ac.0.15 guntas to third parties and caused

loss to joint family and stated that he has no objection if Ac.0-

33 guntas is also included in the partition as it would benefit

all the parties, the learned trial Court has held the schedule-A

property to be ancestral and joint family property.

19. As defendant No.1 specifically deposed that he has no

objection for partition of plaint-A schedule inherited by their

father and also in respect of Schedule-C and D he has no

objection for partition of the said properties, by accepting them

to be joint family properties, the learned trial Court basing the

admissions of defendant No.1(DW1) has held that Schedule-

A,C,D are joint family properties available for partition among

the legal heirs of Sri Yeddula Yella Reddy. But however, when

it came to Schedule-B property, as the defendant No.1 (DW1)

has specifically claimed it as a self acquired property, the

learned Judge by appreciating the evidence of DW1, who

specifically deposed that their father got Acs.25.00 of ancestral

land and the joint family, consisting of Yella Reddy, his two

sons i.e., plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1, only possessed

13

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

such land as joint family properties, and though Schedule-B

property was registered in the name of defendant No.1 vide

Ex.B1 (one property) and in favour of plaintiff No.4 and

defendant No.2 (other part of schedule-B property) vide Ex.B2,

as there was no proof of self acquisition or contribution of any

amount from his earnings to the joint family, the learned trial

Court Judge came to a conclusion as to the joint family having

resources for purchasing the properties and more significantly

in the light of assertion of DW1 as to the existence of the joint

family till filing of the suit and held that, mere purchase of the

lands on the name of defendant No.1 (Ex.B1) and defendant

No.2 and plaintiff No.4 jointly (Ex.B2), cannot by itself be the

self acquired property of the defendants.

20. The learned trial Court Judge has categorically opined

that even the Schedule-B properties which were though

purchased in the name of defendant No.1 and rest purchased

in the name of defendant No.2 and plaintiff No.4 jointly, in

view of the categorical assertion of PW2-Mr.Raghuramulu, who

was the scribe of Exs.A4 to A6 and A8-Will Deed that the said

schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family

14

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and also

the evidence of PW5- Mr.Balreddy, who is the agnate of the

parties to the suit, has specifically deposed that late Yella

Reddy has purchased nearly 14 acres of land at Manthati from

his agnate namely-Rama Laxmamma, Acs.10.00 of land from

Patwari Ramarao and he has witnessed the said transaction.,

the learned trial Court has concluded the suit schedule

properties to be joint family properties. Furthermore, as to the

specific deposition of defendant No.1 (DW1-Jaipal Reddy), who

admitted in the evidence that they all were in the joint family

during the life time of their parents along with plaintiff No.3,

who also continued to be a member of the joint family until her

marriage in the year 1996, and as the joint family was still in

existence until filing of the suit, and as the evidence on record

clearly established the case of the plaintiffs that as the

defendant No.1 joined the Government Service in the year

1970, and the property vide Exs.B1 and B2 i.e., Ex.A4 and A5

were only purchased in the year 1970 in the absence of

substantive evidence, the learned trial Court that they were all

joint family properties.

15

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

21. Therefore, the learned trial Court Judge after considering

the evidence of DW1 along with the evidence of PWs 1 to PW8

has held that all the schedule properties A to D are the joint

family properties. In so far as the execution of Will Deed by

plaintiff No.1(mother) in favour of plaintiff No.2 bequeathing

her share, the learned trial Court Judge has held that since

the plaintiff No.1 being mother had a definite share as per

Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1986 and the Will Deed

executed by plaintiff No.1 bequeathing her undefined share to

plaintiff No.2 was Registered and the scribe of the Will Deed,

PW8 has supported the same and as there was no suspicious

circumstances in execution of Will Deed, plaintiff No.2 who

would succeed her share by virtue of the said Will Deed.

Further on all counts, the suit was decreed as prayed for,

directing the plaintiffs to file appropriate application for

appointing an Advocate Commissioner to divide the suit

schedule property by metes and bounds and for passing of

final decree.

16

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

22. The said Judgment and Decree is now challenged by the

defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the present Appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE

APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:-

23. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would

contend that, insofar as Schedule-A, C and D, since the

defendant No.1(DW1) specifically admitted that the said

properties are the ancestral properties, the said properties

would be deemed to be joint family properties and the

respective parties i.e., plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 shall

be entitled for equal shares. But however, disputed the share

of plaintiff No.2, being devolved upon by virtue of Will Deed

vide Ex.A8. The learned counsel vehemently contended that

the recitals of the Will Deed was very much cleverly drafted to

the convenience of the plaintiff No.2, which would go to show

that there exists suspicion on the execution of the Will Deed.

As such, contended that the plaintiff No.2 cannot be entitled to

any share by virtue of the said Will Deed and more so, it is

stated that such suspicious Will Deed will not confer any right

in favour of plaintiff No.2 and it is contended that though

17

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

scribe is examined to prove the same, such Will Deeds cannot

supersede natural succession of her share to all the legal

heirs.

24. The learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagath Ram and

Another Vs. Suresh and Others 1, wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held as follows:

“Registration of a document does not

dispense with the need of proving the

execution and attestation of a document which

is required by law to be proved in the manner

as provided in Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

Under Section 58 of the registration Act the

Registrar shall endorse the following

particulars on every document admitted to

registration:

(1) the date, hour and place of presentation of

the document for registration;

(2) the signature and addition of every person

admitting the execution of the document,

and, if such execution has been admitted by

the representative, assign or agent of any

person, the signature and addition of such

representative, assign or agent;

(3) the signature and addition of every person

examined in reference to such document

under any or the provisions of this Act, and

1

(2003) 12 Supreme Court Cases 35

18

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

(4) any payment of money or delivery of goods

made in the presence of the registering officer

in reference to the execution of the document,

and any admission of receipt of consideration,

in whole or in part, made in his presence in

reference to such execution.”

25. By drawing a clue from the Judgment, the learned

counsel would contend that mere registration of a Will Deed is

not a proof of execution of the same and peculiarly the

language used in the said Will Deed is cleverly drafted with all

requisite conditions which would for itself throws doubt on it

and cannot be believed as genuineness and, therefore, the

same cannot be relied upon and the learned trial Court Judge

has not considered the same in proper perspective.

26. The learned counsel vehemently opposed the partition of

the Schedule-B property as per the Decree passed by the

learned trial Court Judge and contended that the Judgment

and Decree is not sustainable in law, and prayed to allow of

the appeal.

27. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 and 2 vehemently

opposed the Judgment and Decree in respect of schedule-B

properties and contended that the schedule-B properties have

19

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

been specifically registered in favour of defendant No.1 (one

part of B-schedule) and jointly in favour of defendant No.2 and

plaintiff No.4 (other part in B-schedule) jointly and defendant

No.1 has got sufficient means to purchase Schedule-B

property being an employee in Government, and thus it is

claimed as self acquired property. It is contended that he was

employed in Panchayat Raj Department in the year 1970,

much less the property was purchased in the year 1976 and

since he has all means to purchase the same, the learned trial

Court Judge erroneously came for a conclusion that defendant

Nos.1 and 2 have not placed any evidence to show that the

said Schedule-B property was self acquired, as such it is

contended that the said findings are not proper and are liable

to be set-aside.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE

RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:-

28. The learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs has

contended that the learned trial court Judge by considering

the pleadings of the plaintiffs and their evidence i.e., PWs 1 to

5 along with Exs.A1 to A10, and also the specific contention of

defendants in the written statement and specific admission

20

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

made by DW1 vide Exs.B1 to B8, the trial Court by giving

cogent reasons and categorical findings on all issues, granted

preliminary decree in favour of the respondents, as such, there

is no impediment or any flaw in the said judgment.

29. The learned counsel would also contend that the

categorical admission of DW1 in his cross examination, dated

21.06.1999 that schedule A and D properties are the ancestral

properties and further admission that joint family continued

till the filing of the suit and their father Yella Reddy died on

09.09.1989, as a member of joint family and since there was

no earlier partition and more so, in the cross examination,

DW1 i.e., defendant No.1 has specifically admitted that he has

no objection for partition of A, C and D schedule properties

and admitted disputes started from the 11

th day death

ceremony of his father, who has no talking terms with his

mother and with his brother i.e., plaintiff No.2 and also with

sister-plaintiff No.3.

30. It is contended that defendant No.1(DW1) categorically

admitted that though he was present in the village on the

21

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

death of his mother, he did not see the dead body and not

attended the death ceremony of his mother, as he was not

happy over the Will Deed executed by deceased-mother in

favour of plaintiff No.2. It is contended that DW1 has also

admitted that he has no objection to divide land under Exs.B2

and B1, which has also its original vide Ex.A4, as per law to be

decided by the Court. It is stated that such categorical

admissions proved the case of the plaintiffs. Further, it is also

contended that the deposition of PW5 clearly establishes the

part of the schedule property, which are in the name of

plaintiff No.4 and defendant No.2 jointly (B-schedule property)

and defendant No.1, and there is no material placed by the

defendants to demonstrate joint family members do not have

any funds to purchase the B-schedule property and that

defendant No.1 has sufficient funds to purchase B-schedule

property and more so, it is contended that the defendant No.1

has only salary income at the time of the purchase of the

schedule –B property. In the light of the specific admission

that, all the joint family members are residing as joint family

till the filing of the subject suit, the B-schedule properties

22

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

though purchased in individual name of defendant No.1 and

defendant No.2 and plaintiff No.4 jointly by joint family

resources cannot be termed as self acquired property of

defendants.

31. Further, it is contended that Ex.B1-Will Deed executed

by mother-plaintiff No.1 in favour of plaintiff No.2- youngest

son was her last wish and the same was proved by examining

scribe of the purported document, and since it is proved by all

means and as there are no suspicious circumstances

surrounding the said Will Deed, the Will Deed entitles the

plaintiff No.2 to claim her share in the suit schedule property.

Therefore, it is contended that the finding of the trial Court

that the said Will Deed was genuinely executed document is

germane and valid. More so, in view of the categorical

admission of the DW1, the said suit was decreed by the

learned trial Court Judge and there are no impediment and

defects in the Judgment passed by the learned trial Court

Judge, which calls for interference of this Court in the instant

appeal.

23

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

32. The learned counsel relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Basant Singh Appellant Vs. Janki Singh

and others

2, wherein, it was held that an admission by a

party in a plaint signed and verified by him, may be used as

evidence against him in other suits and learned counsel

contended that the defendant has admitted B-schedule

property to be joint family property in a suit filed against third

parties, as such, B-schedule property is a joint family

property.

33. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the

Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukh Ram

and Another Vs. Gauri Shankar and Another

3, wherein it

was held that in a Joint Hindu Family governed by Benares

School of Hindu Law, interest and property acquired by widow

by virtue of the act is subject to restrictions, qua alienation, as

found in Benares School of Hindu Law.

34. The learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the

Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shrinivas

2

AIR 1967 supreme Court 341

3

AIR 1968 Supreme Court 365

24

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

Krishna Rao Kango Vs. Narayan Devji Kango and Others

4,

wherein it is held that, whether it is joint family or self

acquired, initial burden of proof on plaintiff who asserts

property to be a joint family property. This burden can be

discharged by showing that family possessed sufficient

income-producing nucleus in its ancestral lands, for acquiring

property in question, and onus would then shift on the

coparcener who claims the property to be his self acquisition.

35. Therefore, in the present case since the plaintiffs have

initially discharged their burden that the joint family has got

sufficient sources for purchase of the property, thus the

burden was on the defendant No.1 to establish that it was a

self acquired property and much less, the defendant has not

produced any substantial evidence to show that the said

property is not a joint family property, much less Schedule-B

property is self acquired property.

36. Lastly the learned counsel placed reliance upon the

Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dorairaj v.

4

(1954) 1 Supreme Court Cases 544

25

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

Doraisamy (dead) through LRs & Ors

5, wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision that in Joint

Hindu Family property partition suit, burden of proof lies on

the member asserting self acquisition and scrutiny of

alienations by Kartha.

37. Therefore, the leaned counsel for the

respondents/plaintiffs vehemently contends that since the

plaintiffs have discharged initial burden, the only question that

falls for consideration before this Court is in respect of B-

schedule property as to whether it is self acquired property or

joint family property. In the light of the judgments and also the

categorical admission of defendant No.1 (DW1) and evidence of

PWs 1 to 8, the defendants have not substantially proved any

self acquisition over the B-schedule property. Therefore, it is

contended that the present appeal is devoid of merits and does

not warrant interference by this Court in a well reasoned

judgment.

38. I have heard learned counsel for the

appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2, the learned counsel for the

5

2026 LawSuit (SC) 120

26

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

respondents/plaintiffs and having given earnest consideration

to their submission, perused the record.

39. In the light of the said submissions of the learned

counsel on either side, the following points arise for

adjudication before this Court:-

1. Whether the schedule A, C & D properties

are available for partition being joint family

property?

2. Whether the Ex.A8/Will Deed executed by

plaintiff No.1 who expired during the

pendency of the suit, bequeathing her share

in respect of the schedule properties in

respect of plaintiff No.2 is valid and whether

the said Will Deed can convey, right title or

interest to the extent of her share in favour of

plaintiff No.2?

3. Whether the suit Schedule-B properties are

the self acquired properties of the defendant

No.1 and if so, whether the said properties

are not available for partition among the legal

heirs of Sri Yeddula Yella Reddy?

POINT NO.1:-

40. Apparently, it is an admitted fact by going into the

pleadings and cross examination of defendant No.1(DW1) that

the Schedule-A, C and D are the ancestral properties.

Therefore, further examination on the said schedule of

27

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

properties to be joint family is not that warranted. Moreso, in

view of the specific pleadings by the defendant No.1 in the

written statement and also in view of his admission in the

cross-examination of DW1, the learned trial Court Judge has

already adjudicated the same by assigning proper and valid

reasons. Though learned counsel for the appellant tacitly

challenges the judgment in respect of Schedule-A, C, D

properties, no cogent evidence is shown to go into the merits of

the said adjudication by the learned trial Court Judge.

Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of

plaintiffs.

POINT NO.2:-

41. As regards the validity of Will Deed vide Ex.B4 executed

by plaintiff No.1 in favour of the plaintiff No.2, it is settled law

that the propounder of the Will Deed has to always prove

beyond reasonable suspicion that the Will Deed which was

executed in his favour is proper and there are no suspicious

surrounding circumstances.

42. Evidently, the Will Deed is a registered document

executed by the plaintiff No.1 (mother) who died pending suit

28

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

on 17.03.1996, bequeathing her share in schedule of the

properties in favour of plaintiff No.2. The evidence of PW8 who

was the scribe of the said document clinchingly proved the

execution of the Will Deed Ex.A8, whose cross examination has

not thrown any suspicion on the execution of the said Will

Deed. More particularly, the very admission of the defendant

No.1 that he was not in good terms and he has not even

participated in the last rites when his mother expired,

eventually shows that defendant No.1 got offended when the

plaintiff No.1 has executed the Will Deed in favour of the

plaintiff No.2 bequeathing her share and nothing contrary is

shown by the defendants to disbelieve the same and more

particularly, the said Will Deed is a registered document. It is

trite law that a registered Will Deed when executed cannot be

doubted unless and until contrary is shown by the other party.

Admittedly no substantive evidence is placed by defendants to

disbelieve the same.

43. It is trite law that under Section 8 of the Hindu

Succession Act, 1956, the wife of the original Kartha of the

family has a definite share and shall be a Class-I legal heir.

29

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

Now by virtue of the execution of the Will Deed, which is amply

proved, in the considered view of this Court, the property

which has been bequeathed by Will Deed vide Ex.A8 is

devolved in favour of plaintiff No.2 conferring a valid title in his

favour in respect of the share of the plaintiff No.1. Though, it is

trite law under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act,

1882, a subsequent transferee pendente lite would be bound

by the result of the pending litigation, however, if it is

established that the person who executed the document had a

valid and vested right in the property at the time of execution,

the subsequent transferee acquires such right, subject to the

outcome of the pending proceedings and the doctrine of lis

pendens. Thus, the plaintiff No.2 is entitled to the share of the

plaintiff No.1.

The 2

nd point as framed by this Court is accordingly

answered in favour of plaintiff No.2.

POINT NO.3:-

44. Whether the Schedule-B property is a self acquired

property or he to be tested more carefully in view of the specific

attack by the counsel for the appellants. The specific

30

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

admissions of the defendant No.1 in cross examinations are

enlightened for coming to a just conclusion and to determine

whether the learned trial Court Judge has dealt the matter

with a proper and tenable findings in the light of the assertion

and depositions of DW1 in deciding it to be a joint family

property.

45. The admissions of defendant No.1(DW1) are hereby

extracted:

“ We all work in joint family during the life

time of our parents including the plaintiff No.3

until her marriage in the year 1966. Thereafter

also we continued in the joint family till

filing of the suit including the plaintiff No.1

and PW1. It is true that my father died as a

member of joint family.

It is true that we got mentioned in

O.S.No.31/90 on the file of this Court that our

father being old aged, short sighted and defined

that I being Government servant, PW1 in the

present case was allowed to act as manager

of our joint family, but the witness adds that:

PW1 was permitted to act as a Manager of

our joint family only for that case only.

I have no objection for partition of the A-

Schedule lands which were inherited by our

father, according to law, but including the Ac.0-

15 guntas in Sy.No.2 which is covered in

31

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

Judgment and decree in O.S.No.16/93 on the file

of JDJ, Nagarkurnool which is in my favour.

It is true that I was present in Manthati

Village on the date of death of plaintiff No.1

and immediately I came to know about her

death. But I did not go and see the deadbody

of my mother and even I did not attend the

death ceremony of my mother, but my family

members have attended to it.

It is true that I stated in Ex.A9 that I did

not see mother’s dead body since she

executed Will Deed in favour of PW1 herein ,

the witness adds that: he gave the above answer

as the question placed to him, otherwise he

would have further stated that reasons for not

seeing the dead body of his mother. It is not true

to say that even before the death of my mother, I

know that she executed Will Deed in favour of

PW1 herein.

It is true that registration was done for

Ac.6.32 guntas in the name of PW1 by same

vendor Ramalaxmamma on the same day of

Ex.B1. PW1 did not come to the place of

Ex.B1, but my father was present at that

time. It is true that my father has personally

got scribed Ex.B1/Sale Deed in the name of

PW1. It is true that attesters in Ex.B1 and

the Registered Sale Deed in the name of

PW1/Ex.A5 are the same and they were

present at the time of execution.

32

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

It is true that the consideration amount

under Ex,A5 was paid by my father to the

vendor in the presence of Sub-Registrar, but

witness adds that: the said amount was

given by him to his father, just before

entering into the office of the Sub-Registrar.

It is true that Ramalaxmamma expressed

her disinclination to sell her land to her family,

and then my father is the younger brother raised

the contention that the Ramalaxmamma shall

sell her property to them only as they are the

agnates.

It is true that my father and we two brothers

were sat and decided to purchase the land from

Ramalaxamma to extent of half share for our

joint family, and also decided that the said

land has to be registered in my name and in

the name of PW1 and accordingly Ex.B1 and

origin of Ex.A5 were executed.

It is true that on the date of payment of

consideration amount by me and our vendors

under Ex.B2, we all were constituted Hindu Joint

Family. My father asked me to pay the entire sale

consideration amount as I have got self

sufficiency of income and private earnings and

accordingly, I paid the said consideration amount

to my vendors, but not in the capacity as joint

family members as suggested to me.

Since myself and PW1 and her father

constitute as Hindu Joint Family, in all signed on

33

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

the loan application as required by the Bank

officials and since it is ancestral property.

It is true that the land under Ex.B2 is still

undivided between plaintiff No.4 and defendant

No.2. I have no objection of dividing the land

under Ex.B2 as per law to be decided by the

Court. It is true that myself and PW1 have

partitioned what are the properties purchased

from Ramalaxmamma, on his part I have no

objection for partition of land covered by Ex.B1

and origin of Ex.A5 as per law to be decided by

the Court. The above lands are shown in B-

schedule.”

46. Having extracted the relevant portion of the cross-

examination of defendant No.1, it is significant to note from

the said admissions that, as on the date of filing of the suit,

the joint family continued to subsist and the joint family

nucleus was very much in existence. More so, the defendant

No.1 i.e., DW1 has categorically asserted that he has no

objection to divide the suit schedule properties including the

schedule-B property as per the Court judgment. The plaintiffs

have brought substantial evidence to show that the joint family

has got enough funds to purchase the land.

34

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

47. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Shrinivas Krishna Rao Kango (supra), once the plaintiff

discharges his initial burden to show that the suit schedule

properties are the joint family properties though registered on

the name of defendant No.1 vide Ex.B1 and defendant No.2

and plaintiff No.4 jointly vide Ex.B2, the onus is on defendant

No.1 to show that as to how the properties were acquired by

him and specifically he should demonstrate the nature of

resources to meet the funds. Once the defendant No.1 asserts

that the schedule-B properties are the self acquired properties,

burden is on the defendant No.1 to show that the said

schedule-B properties exclusively belong to the defendant No.1

and the said lands have been purchased by his self earnings.

Further, cross examination of DW1 specifically shows that the

same is purchased by joint family funds and do not support

the case of defendant No.1, to show that the schedule

properties in respect of schedule-B properties are self acquired

properties of defendants.

48. The plaintiffs have fully discharged their initial burden of

existence of joint family nucleus as on the date of filing of suit.

35

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

Moreso, the admission of defendant No.1 in his cross

examination, coupled with evidence of PWs 1 to 8 go to show

that all the schedule properties are joint family properties. In

that view of the matter, and in view that the judgment in

Shrinivas Krishna Rao Kango (supra), relied upon by the

learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, this Court is of

the considered view that once the joint family nucleus are

shown to be existing as on the date of the filing of the suit, any

property which is even purchased on one of the legal heirs,

without there being any evidence of self earning by defendants,

will definitely fall in the common pool of joint family properties.

49. Thus, in the light of the above specific admissions of

DW1 i.e., defendant No.1 coupled with depositions of PWs 1 to

8 along with the documents filed and the positive admissions

and affirmations of the defendant No.1(DW1), this Court

without there being any hesitation specifically hold that the

findings arrived by the learned trial Court Judge, in coming to

a conclusion that the schedule-B properties are the ancestral

and joint family properties, which are liable to be partitioned

as per their entitlements, is proper and valid.

36

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered in favour of

plaintiffs.

CONCLUSION:-

50. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court do not see

any substantial grounds placed by the appellants/defendant

Nos.1 and 2 to interfere with the well reasoned and well

considered findings of the trial Court Judge, and the appeal is

devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

51. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed, by confirming

the Judgment and Decree dated 01.12.1999 passed in

O.S.No.1 of 1994 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, at

Nagarkurnool. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand

closed.

__________________________________

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J

Date: 01.10.2026

ds

37

SCR,J

AS.No.191_2000

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

APPEAL SUIT No.191 of 2000

Date: 01.10.2026

ds