IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR APPEAL SUIT NO.1006 OF 2001 Between : A.Kamalamma ....PETITIONER A N D P.Lakshmamma and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR APPEAL SUIT NO.1006 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 06.12.2000 in O.S.No.187 of 1996 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati ( ‘trial Court’, for brevity) wherein the suit was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Appellant herein is the plaintiff. Respondent No.1 is the mother, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are sisters of the appellant. Respondent Nos.4 to 6, claim to have purchased a part of the suit schedule property from respondent No.1. Respondent No.7 was impleaded in this appeal as per the orders of this Court in C.M.P.No.622 of 2005 dated 07.07.2005, whereas respondent No.8 was impleaded in this appeal as per the orders of this Court in ASMP No.1473 of 2005 dated 07.11.2005. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed in the Original Suit. 4. The specific case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property is the ancestral and joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3, and that the open site was purchased wherein they constructed two shops and three residential houses by their joint contributions. It is also her case that though the property has been standing in the name of defendant No.1, they have been sharing the rents equally, and that the defendant Nos.1 to 3, without informing her, executed a sale deed dated 20.05.1996, in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos. 4 to 6. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the original suit for partition of the suit schedule property before the trial Court.. 5. Defendant No.1 filed written statement, which is adopted by defendant Nos.2 and 3. Their specific case is that the suit schedule property is self acquired property of defendant No.1 and that she was working as a Sweeper in T.T.D., and the T.T.D. authorities allotted her plot No.266 at Bairagipatteda on 12.01.1985, and that the cost of the plot was recovered from her salary by the TTD. It is also the case of defendant No.1 that she secured a loan from the TTD for the purpose of construction of building and that she alone had discharged the entire loan. Thus, their specific case is that the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of defendant No.1. It is also their case that as defendant No.1 became indebted to third parties while constructing the building, she was forced to sell a portion of the suit schedule property i.e., 40 ankanams of open land, in favour of defendant No.s 4 to 6 under a registered sale deed dated 02.05.1996, for a valid consideration and that the plaintiff has no right to claim the partition of the suit schedule property. 6. Defendant No.4 filed written statement, which is adopted by defendant Nos.5 and 6 and they are also sailing with defendant No.1. 7. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1) Whether the plaint schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 ? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of partition of suit schedule property into four equal shares and for allotment of one such share ? 3) To what relief ? 8. During the trial, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 besides examining P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.10. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1 and one T.Narayana Reddy was examined as D.W.2 and Exs.B.1 to B.18 were marked. 9. The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that suit schedule property is the self acquired property of the first defendant, mainly on the admissions made by P.W.1 that her mother was working in T.T.D. as Sweeper and that she retired from service in the month of September, 1990, and that the TTD authorities had allotted a plot to her mother, while she was working in T.T.D. on 12.01.1985, and that her mother discharged the loan on 31.10.1995. It is also observed that defendant No.1 sold 40 ankanams out of the 60 ankanams of land, to defendant Nos. 4 to 6 and that they have been in possession to that extent since 02.05.1996, and that the remaining extent of 20 ankanams of land has been in the possession of defendant No.1. 10. Further, the trial Court observed that if at all the plaintiff had spent any amount for construction of the building in the plot allotted to defendant No.1, the plaintiff can recover that amount, but she cannot demand for partition of the suit schedule property. 11. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the suit schedule property can be treated as a joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3? 12. When the plaintiff is claiming that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property and it was purchased and the building was constructed with the joint contribution of herself and defendant Nos. 1 to 3, the burden lies on her to prove the same. Admittedly, there is no documentary evidence to prove the case of the plaintiff, except the oral evidence of P.Ws 2 and 3. Moreover, the plaintiff (P.W.1) herself admitted that her mother was allotted the site by T.T.D. and that the TTD recovered the cost of the plot from the salary of her mother. It is also an admitted case that her mother (defendant No.1) secured loan from TTD for the purpose of construction of the building. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that defendant No.1 had obtained a loan of Rs.24,378/- and that was not sufficient for construction of the building. The evidence of P.W.2 shows that she also made some contributions for the construction of the building. It is argued that the trial Court ought to have considered the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. Even according to P.W.2, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 were paying wages to the coolies engaged for the construction of the building. Of course P.W.3 deposed that P.W.1 paid Rs.12,000/- in the year 1994 and another sum of Rs.16,000/- to him for the electrical work done by him in the suit schedule property. 13. However, P.W.1 in her cross-examination, admitted that she never contributed any amount for construction of the building. The evidence of defendant No.1 (D.W.1) and the evidence of D.W.2 shows that defendant No.1 had sold a part of her property i.e., 40 ankanams of land to defendant Nos.4 to 6 for the purpose of discharging the debts incurred for the construction of the building. These circumstances also go to show that defendant No.1, not only with the amounts sanctioned by the T.T.D., but by raising loans had completed the construction of buildilng and for the purpose of discharge of those loans, she had sold 40 ankanams of land of the plot and that she retained 20 ankanams of the land of the plot. 14. I have gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the trial court. The trial Court findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence. I do not find any reason to interfere with the well- reasoned judgment of the trial court. The appeal suit is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, no costs. ________________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J AUGUST 23, 2010. YVL