THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR A.S.No.3823 of 2000 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Chandra Kumar) Aggrieved by the order passed by the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dated 22.09.1997 in O.P.No.214 of 1986, claimants 5 and 6 before the lower Court preferred this appeal. The brief facts of the case, for disposal of the appeal, are as follows. An extent of Ac.13.31 guntas of land in S.No.865 situated at Medchal was acquired by the Government in 1979 and an award was passed in November 1979 awarding total compensation of Rs.1,80,355.70 ps. A dispute arose between claimant No.4 and claimants 5 and 6 with regard to the entitlement of compensation. The specific plea of the fourth claimant is that he purchased an extent of Ac.13.31 guntas of land by virtue of sale deed dated 10.10.1968. The case of claimants 5 and 6 is that claimants 1 to 3 had earlier filed O.S.No.51 of 1966 on the file of the Munsiff Magistrate, Hyderabad East, claiming partition of ancestral property and the said suit was decreed holding that claimants 1 to 3 were entitled to half share and the fourth claimant was entitled to half share. It is their further case that since claimants 5 to 7 are the sons and daughter of Lohar Venkamma they are entitled for the share of Lohar Venkamma. It is the further case of claimants 5 and 6 that the fourth claimant filed an application to implead him in O.S.No.51 of 1966 and that the said application was dismissed. Therefore, the fourth claimant is not entitled to claim compensation. The specific plea of claimant No.4 was that after he obtained sale deed 10.10.1968, claimants 5 to 7 filed O.S.No.52 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsiff, Medchal, for cancellation of sale deed and the said suit was dismissed. In view of dismissal of O.S.No.52 of 1992, the sale deed executed by Lohar Venkamma in favour of the fourth claimant became final. In order to prove their case, on behalf of the claimants 1 to 3, the first claimant was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the fourth claimant, his son, who is a G.P.A. holder, got himself examined as PW.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. The fifth claimant, who is representing claimants 6 and 7, got himself examined as PW.3. The reference Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that claimants 5 and 6 are not entitled to claim any compensation and that the fourth claimant is entitled to get half share of the compensation and remaining half share would go to claimants 1, 3, and the legal heirs of claimant No.2 i.e., claimants 8 to 11. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as per the decree in O.S.No.51 of 1966 Lohar Venkamma was entitled to half share. Being the legal representatives of Lohar Venkamma claimants 5 and 6 are entitled to her half share. It is also their submission that the fourth claimant filed an application to implead himself in O.S.No.51 of 1966. Since the said application was dismissed he is not entitled for compensation. No representation for the other claimants. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled to claim half share of Lohar Venkamma as per the decree in O.S.No.51 of 1966. As far as the claim of claimants 1 to 3 is concerned, it is not in dispute that they are entitled to each half share. It is also not in dispute that claimants 1 to 3 and Lohar Venkamma are entitled to half share in Ac.13.31 guntas in S.No.865, in the suit schedule property of O.S.No.51 of 1966. The specific case of the fourth claimant is that Lohar Venkamma sold her share by sale deed dated 10.10.1968 in his favour. Admittedly the suit filed by claimants 5 and 6 in O.S.No.52 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsiff, Medchal, seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 10.10.1968, was dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in view of the partition suit in O.S.No.51 of 1966, claimants 5 and 6,who are the legal representatives of Lohar Venkamma, are also entitled to half share. It is true that as per the judgment in O.S.No.51 of 1966, Lohar Venkamma was entitled to half share and claimants 1 to 3 were entitled to half share. But the evidence of PW.2, the sale deed dated 10.10.1968 and the judgment in O.S.No.52 of 1992 clinchingly establish that Lohar Venkamma sold her half share to the fourth claimant. Admittedly, except the oral evidence of the fifth claimant, no documents were marked on behalf of claimants 5 to 7. The learned counsel for the appellants lastly submitted that claimant No.5, who was examined as PW.3, deposed that his mother mortgaged the land in favour of the fourth claimant. Even if his contention is accepted for the sake of argument, it is clear that neither the mother of claimants 5 and 6 nor claimants 5 and 6 redeemed the mortgage property and paid the mortgage amount to claimant No.4. More over, when there is documentary evidence, i.e., sale deed dated 10.10.1968, showing that Lohar Venkamma had already sold the property, the oral evidence of PW.3 that it was not a sale deed but mortgage deed, cannot be accepted. In view of the same, we hold that there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ (A.GOPAL REDDY, J.) ____________________ (B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.) 12th August, 2009 Js.