Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from a suit for declaration and partition filed by the plaintiffs, who are the wife and children of deceased Goriparthi Nageswara Rao, against his two brothers. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit schedule properties belonged to their common ancestor, Goriparthi Venkanna, and that upon his death and the death of his wife, the properties devolved upon the three brothers as joint owners. They alleged that the registered partition deed dated 27.06.2008, registered settlement deed dated 27.06.2008, and registered sale deed dated 25.04.2015 were sham, collusive, fraudulent, and not binding on them. They sought partition of the properties into three equal shares, with the first plaintiff claiming 1/27th share, the second plaintiff 1/9th share, and the third plaintiff 1/27th share. The first defendant filed a written statement asserting that a registered partition deed was executed in 2008 dividing Suit A property and joint family cash of Rs.1,00,000, with the deceased taking the cash share, while Suit B property was settled in his favour by the deceased and second defendant through a registered settlement deed dated 27.06.2008, later gifted to a temple by registered gift settlement deed dated 25.04.2015. The second defendant filed a separate written statement reiterating these averments. The trial court, after recording oral and documentary evidence, framed issues regarding entitlement to partition and validity of the impugned deeds, and dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 11.06.2019. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to set aside the trial court's judgment and decree and to decree the suit as prayed for. The High Court heard arguments from both sides and perused the record. The available judgment text includes the pleadings, evidence schedule, and issues framed by the trial court, but ends before recording the trial court's detailed findings or the High Court's analysis, reasoning, and final decision. Therefore, no final outcome, ratio decidendi, or operative directions can be extracted from the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's dismissal of the suit for declaration and partition was erroneous; whether the registered partition deed dated 27.06.2008, registered settlement deed dated 27.06.2008, and registered sale deed dated 25.04.2015 were sham, collusive, fraudulent, and non-binding on the plaintiffs; whether the plaintiffs were entitled to partition of the suit schedule properties into three equal shares with specific fractional allotments.
Law Points
- Appeal under Section 96 of CPC
- declaratory relief for sham and fraudulent documents
- partition of joint family property
- validity of registered partition deed and settlement deed
- burden of proving fraud and collusion
Case Details
Ravi Nath Tilhari, Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
Ch Siva Reddy, A Rajendra Babu, S S R Murthy
Goriparthi Jhansi, Goriparthi Rishitha, Goriparthi Rithwik
Goriparthi Sriram Murthy, Goriparthi Surya Rao
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against dismissal of suit for declaration and partition
Remedy Sought
Set aside trial court judgment and decree dated 11.06.2019 and decree the suit as prayed for, including declaration that deeds are sham, collusive, fraudulent and non-binding, and partition of suit properties
Filing Reason
Trial court dismissed O.S. No. 12 of 2013, and appellants/plaintiffs challenged the dismissal
Previous Decisions
III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, dismissed O.S. No. 12 of 2013 vide judgment and decree dated 11.06.2019
Issues
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get partition of plaint schedule properties into 3 equal shares and for allotment of 1/3rd share in plaint schedule properties to them?
Whether the plaintiffs are further entitled to get partition of 1/3rd share of deceased Goriparthi Nageswara Rao and for allotment of 1/27th share to the 1st plaintiff, 1/9th share to the 2nd plaintiff and 1/27th share to 3rd plaintiff?
To what relief?
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that the Registered Settlement Deed dated 27-06-2008 vide Doc.No.2920/2008 is a fraudulent transaction?
Whether the Registered Sale Deeds, dated 27-06-2008 and 25-04-2015 are not true and valid and not binding on the 1st plaintiff's husband Goriparthi Nageswara Rao and the plaintiffs?
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that the registered Partition, dated 27-06-2008 (Doc.No.2921/2008) is a fraudulent, collusive, sham and nominal document?
Whether the registered Partition Deed, dated 27-06-2008 is not true and valid and whether the same is brought into existence to defraud the 1st plaintiff's husband G. Nageswara Rao and the plaintiffs?
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiffs claimed that suit schedule properties belonged to common ancestor Goriparthi Venkanna and devolved upon the three brothers as joint owners; there was no division, and the registered partition deed dated 27.06.2008, settlement deed dated 27.06.2008, and sale deed dated 25.04.2015 were sham, nominal, collusive, fraudulent, and not binding on them.
Defendant No.1 contended that the suit A property was partitioned among the three brothers through registered partition deed dated 27.06.2008, with the deceased taking the cash share of Rs.1,00,000, while suit B property was settled in his favour by the deceased and second defendant through registered settlement deed dated 27.06.2008 and later gifted to a temple by registered gift settlement deed dated 25.04.2015, and that the plaintiffs had no right to challenge these deeds.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs in O.S. No. 12 of 2013 in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, challenging the dismissal of the said suit, vide judgment and decree dated 11.06.2019.
O.S. No.12 of 2013 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking for declaration and partition and to declare the partition deed, and settlement deed dated 27.06.2008 in respect of suit ‘A’ Schedule property and registered sale deed 25.04.2015 in respect of suit ‘B’ Schedule property as sham, collusive and fraudulent and non-binding on the plaintiffs.
Procedural History
O.S. No.12 of 2013 was filed in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram seeking declaration and partition. An amendment was allowed on 16.08.2018 vide I.A. No. 620/2018 adding pleadings for declaration that the registered settlement deeds dated 27.06.2008 and 25.04.2015 and registered partition deed dated 27.06.2008 were fraudulent, collusive, sham, nominal and non-binding. The defendants filed written statements. Oral and documentary evidence were recorded. The trial court framed issues including additional issues on 23.10.2018. The trial court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 11.06.2019. The plaintiffs preferred the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was heard on 22.01.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 96
