K Aruna vs. Putta Gampala Tulasamma
Court:High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Judge:Hon'ble Dr V R K Krupa Sagar
Case Status:Disposed
Order Date:23 Jun 2022
CNR:APHC010118862022
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Admission
Before:
Hon'ble K Suresh Reddy
Listed On:
23 Jun 2022
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: S.A.NO.169 OF 2022
PROCEEDINGS SHEET
| Sl.<br>No. | OFFICE<br>NOTE | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| DATE | ORDER | ||
| 4. | 23.06.2022 | KSR,J<br>The plaintiffs in O.S.No.13 of 2011 on the file of the Court of<br>Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri are the appellants herein. They filed the<br>above suit against the respondents herein seeking partition of the<br>suit schedule property into three equal shares and allotment of two<br>shares to them.<br>It is their specific case that the defendant No.2 is their father and<br>defendant No.1 is none other than the sister of defendant No.2. The<br>suit<br>schedule<br>property<br>and<br>other<br>ancestral<br>properties<br>were<br>partitioned between the defendants and other brothers and sisters.<br>The suit schedule property fell to the share of the defendant No.2.<br>The plaintiffs, being the daughters of defendant No.2, are entitled for<br>14/3rd share each. Subsequently, defendant No.2 sold the said<br>property in favour of defendant No.1 under a registered sale deed,<br>dated 30-08-2006, though the defendant No.2 was having only 1/3rd<br>share in the suit schedule property. He sold the said property<br>infavour of defendant No.1, which is not binding on the plaintiffs. The<br>plaintiffs came to know about the factum of sale in the year 2010<br>only. Immediately, they got issued a legal notice dated 03-08-2010<br>for partition. Thereafter, the present suit was filed.<br>Defendant No.1 alone contested the suit by filing a written<br>statement. It is his contention that the plaintiffs were having<br>knowledge of the registered sale deed in the year 2010 itself and the<br>suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation.<br>In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and in<br>view of the following substantial questions of law,<br>"Whether the courts below are right in shifting the burden on the<br>appellants when the 1st respondent herein asserted that the<br>properties were sold by defendant No.2 under Ex.A-1 for family<br>necessities of defendant No.2 without there being any averments in<br>Ex.A-1 and without there being any proof to that extent and also<br>ignoring Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872. | |
| ADMIT the Second Appeal. | |||
| _________________ |
K.SURESH REDDY,J
| Sl.<br>No. | OFFICE<br>NOTE | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| DATE | ORDER | ||
| I.A.NO.1 OF 2022 | |||
| In view of the above facts and circumstances and taking into<br>consideration of the grounds mentioned in the Memorandum of<br>Grounds of Appeal, the respondents are directed not to create any<br>third party interest in the suit schedule property until further orders. | |||
| Notice. | |||
| _________________<br>K.SURESH REDDY,J | |||
| TSNR | |||
Share This Order
Case History of Orders
Similar Case Search