suit for partition - suppressing earlier partition - a conditional settlement for re-opening of earlier partition can not be considered and it can not rendered the earlier partition as not acted upon as there was overwhelm evidence for showing earlier partition was acted upon - Single judge committed error - and as such it was set aside= there is enormous evidence on record in order to show that earlier partition of the year 1953 was given effect to and the parties to the said partition have been in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares and some of the parties including the plaintiff have also disposed of the properties that fell to their share to third parties. Nextly they filed separate declarations before the Land Reforms Tribunal and the findings of the Tribunal have become final and hence he finally contends that the alleged partition agreement said to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants in the year 1982 under Ex.A1 was not acted upon. he contends that the plaintiff suppressed the factum of earlier partition and in view of the overwhelming evidence in this regard, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree as prayed for. Ex.A-1 kararnama (settlement) and since there was no coercion or compulsion, 1st defendant is bound by Ex.A-1. It is also further observed that 1st defendant had issued no notice denying Ex.A-1. The learned single Judge also found that 1st defendant in his evidence simply deposed that the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 have been aggrieved with the fact that the price of his land has increased and they wanted repartition and that he told that already he had partitioned his lands to his sons and if they agree, he had no objection and his sons did not agree for reopening the partition. The above factors already highlighted which were not considered by the learned single Judge, though on record, would only strengthens the contention of the 1st defendant that Ex.A-1 was acceptable subject to the approval of his sons and, therefore, he signed Ex.A-1 voluntarily. That means his signing on Ex.A-1 though voluntaily, was conditional. In view of the above important factors, we hold that there was earlier partition in the year 1953 and Ex.A-1 settlement is not binding. Further Ex.A-1 was entered into in the year 1982 and the suit was filed in the year 1986. Considering all these factors we hold that the finding of the learned single Judge in believing Ex.A-1 by not appreciating the crucial evidence both oral and documentary on record, merits only reversal. Hence we answer the issue in favour of the 1st defendant - appellant. For the foregoing reasons, we pass the order as under:- The impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and the LPA is allowed with costs.-2015 A.P.(2002) MSK LAW REPORTS


suit for partition - suppressing earlier partition - a conditional settlement for re-opening of earlier partition can not be considered and it can not rendered the earlier partition as not acted upon as there was overwhelm evidence for showing earlier partition was acted upon - Single judge committed error - and as such it was set aside=
there is enormous evidence on record in order to show that earlier partition of the year 1953 was given effect to and the parties to the said partition have been in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares and some of the parties including the plaintiff have also disposed of the properties that fell to their share to third parties. Nextly they filed separate declarations before the Land Reforms Tribunal and the findings of the Tribunal have become final and hence he finally contends that the alleged partition agreement said to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants in the year 1982 under Ex.A1 was not acted upon.
 he contends that the plaintiff suppressed the factum of earlier partition and in view of the overwhelming evidence in this regard, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree as prayed for.
Ex.A-1 kararnama (settlement) and since there was no coercion or compulsion, 1st defendant is bound by Ex.A-1. It is also further observed that 1st defendant had issued no notice denying Ex.A-1. The learned single Judge also found that 1st defendant in his evidence simply deposed that the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 have been aggrieved with the fact that the price of his land has increased and they wanted repartition and that he told that already he had partitioned his lands to his sons and if they agree, he had no objection and his sons did not agree for reopening the partition. The above factors already highlighted which were not considered by the learned single Judge, though on record, would only strengthens the contention of the 1st defendant that Ex.A-1 was acceptable subject to the approval of his sons and, therefore, he signed Ex.A-1 voluntarily. That means his signing on Ex.A-1 though voluntaily, was conditional.
In view of the above important factors, we hold that there was earlier partition in the year 1953 and Ex.A-1 settlement is not binding. Further Ex.A-1 was entered into in the year 1982 and the suit was filed in the year 1986. Considering all these factors we hold that the finding of the learned single Judge in believing Ex.A-1 by not appreciating the crucial evidence both oral and documentary on record, merits only reversal.
 Hence we answer the issue in favour of the 1st defendant - appellant.
 For the foregoing reasons, we pass the order as under:-
The impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and the LPA is allowed with costs.-2015 A.P.(2002) MSK LAW REPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)