HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD A.S.842 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per BPR,J) The appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.106/2003 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, R.R.District. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed for partition of the suit schedule property an for allotment of 1/4th share therein in favour of the plaintiff, for mesne profits and for costs. The suit having been dismissed, the plaintiff has filed the appeal. Before proceeding to consider the case, it is necessary to set out the relationship among the parties. Late T.Satyanarayana had two wives. The first wife was one Smt.Narasamma. The second wife was Smt. Ramulamma. Through the first wife, he had three daughters and one son namely Smt.Chittaramma, Smt. Veeramani (D3), Smt. Manjula (plaintiff) and Dr.T.Srinivasulu (D1). Through the second wife, he had one daughter by name Smt.Lakshmi Devi (D2). The case of the plaintiff is that her father late satyanarayana acquired several properties in his name and in the name of his wives and he died intestate. The two wives also died intestate in the early 1990s. The plaintiff along with the defendants jointly inherited the suit A to D schedule properties. It is her case that after the death of Satyanarayana, defendant No.1 being the sole male member joint successor looked after the properties and on attainment of majority by the plaintiff, all the owners of the joint family properties executed General Power of Attorney constituting defendant No.1 as the Power of Attorney holder vide registered instrument No.121/1980 dated 1-9-1980, that the first defendant misused the powers conferred under the said G.P.A and collected huge amounts which were to be accounted by the first defendant. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff demanded her share in mesne profits from the suit A schedule properties and also the proceeds out of the sale deeds executed by the first defendant for and on behalf of the joint owners but the defendant No.1 has not acceded to the same. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff cancelled the power of attorney dated 1-9-1980 vide document No.156/2003 dated 2-6- 2003 and the cancellation of the power of attorney was intimated through her counsel to the first defendant on 5-6-2003. The plaintiff had called upon the first defendant on 16-6-2003 to render account and as there was no response forthcoming from the first defendant, she was constrained to file the suit for partition of the suit schedule properties. She is entitled for a definite share by virtue of Sections 8 and 11 of Hindu Succession Act, 1955, as she is a class-I legal heir and thus she is entitled to equal share along with the defendants. Ultimately the plaintiff prayed for allowing 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule comprises of four schedules, of which the schedule ‘A’ properties are situated in Thummabowli village, R.R. District while schedule ‘B’ is a house situated in Sreenivas Nagar, Saroornagar, R.R. District. Whereas the schedule ‘C’ is an open land inS.No.268, Gaddi Annaram village, Saroornagar and the schedule ‘D’ comprises of a house in Gaddi Annaram village, Saroornagar, R.R. District. The first defendant filed a written statement stating that their father late Satyanarayana acquired land admeasuring Ac.81.26 guntas in S.No.200 situated at Sahebnagar Kalan village, Hayatnagar Mandal, R.R. District in the name of his eldest daughter namely Smt. Chittaramma and that during his life time Satyanarayana sold Ac.41-26 guntas out of the said extent of Ac.81-26 guntas, retaining Ac.40-00 in his possession. It is the case of the first defendant that Satyanarayana died on 10-11-1973 and after his death the first defendant was looking after the entire family affairs. It is his case that after the death of his father, schedule ‘A’ lands situated at Thummabowli village were divided into plots under a sanctioned layout to the extent of Ac.31-21 guntas, that all the sisters along with Smt.T.Ramulamma executed a common registered General Power of Attorney dated 1-9-1980 in favour of the first defendant authorizing him to sell the plots out of the sanctioned layout to the extent of Ac.37-21 guntas of the ‘A’ schedule property, that he distributed the sale consideration having sole the plots, that the balance of Ac.33-00 out of ‘A’ schedule remained unsold and at that stage the plaintiff along with other sisters and the first defendant made a family arrangement pursuant to which the plaintiff and other sisters gifted away their entire rights and interest in the remaining land comprising Ac.33-00 of schedule ‘A’ as well as entire ‘B’ schedule property in favour of the first defendant in lieu of their taking entire land in S.No.200 consisting of Ac.40-00 towards their share. It is also his case that all the sisters entered into a provisional agreement dated 24-7-1980 in respect of the land bearing S.No.200. It is also his case that after the said arrangement, the plaintiff also executed registered gift deed dated 15-4-1983 in favour of Sri T.Shiva Kumar the youngest son of the first defendant to the extent of her share admeasuring Ac.6-24 guntas in the suit ‘A’ schedule property and similarly the defendants 2 and 3 also executed gift deeds dated 15-4-1983 in respect of their shares in schedule ‘A’ property in favour of the eldest son of the first defendant as well as in the name of wife of the first defendant and in view of the execution of the said registered gift deeds, either the plaintiff or other defendants have no right or interest whatsoever in respect of schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties and that as per the registered gift deeds, mutation was also sanctioned in the name of the respective persons in the revenue records. It is the further case of the first defendant that the plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 as well as the eldest sister namely Smt.Chittaramma jointly sold Ac.33-00 out of Ac.40-00 in S.No.200 of Sahebnagar Kalan village, distributed the sale consideration among themselves equally and for the remaining land of Ac.8-00 in Sy.No.200 of Sahebnagar village, the plaintiff along with the defendants 2 and 3 filed O.S.No.597/2000 on the file of the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District for partition and possession against their eldest sister Smt.Chittaramma and that a final decree was passed on 22-12-2000. It is the case of the first defendant that after getting her share of the land in O.S.No.597/2000, the plaintiff sold the same by dividing into plots and that the plaintiff intentionally suppressed the said facts, that the plaintiff had not included S.No.200 in the suit schedule property and that the suit was filed to extract money from his defendant. It is the further case of the plaintiff that plaint ‘C’ and ‘D’ schedule properties belonged to T.Ramulamma, that T.Ramulamma bequeathed schedule ‘C’ and ‘D’ schedule properties in favour of the first defendant as well as in favour of his wife, son and daughter under a Will dated 4-8-1992, that after the death of Ramulamma the will was acted upon and the legatees obtained separate permission from the Gram Panchayat, Gaddi Annaram and constructed respective houses and separate house numbers were also allotted by Gaddi Annaram Municipality. It is also his further case that so far as ‘B’ schedule property is concerned, the same is acquired by paternal grand mother of the first defendant by name Smt.T.Chittaramma @ Chittemma, wife of Lakshmaiah and the defendant No.1 being grand son acquired rights along with his father in the said property and after the death of his father, entire ‘B’ schedule property was allotted to him under family arrangement and after getting the same mutated in his name the first defendant also executed a gift deed dated 18-10-2000 conveying the ‘B’ schedule property in favour of his youngest son T.Shiva Kumar and his grand sons and after obtaining the necessary permissions, they also constructed their respective houses. It is also his case that he performed the marriage of the plaintiff by spending huge amount with one A.Vijayakumar and subsequently the plaintiff divorced A.Vijayakumar and thereafter this defendant performed the second marriage of plaintiff with one Sri K.C.Prabhu and as this defendant refused to perform marriage of the daughter of the plaintiff with his second son, the suit was filed with false allegations. It is also his further case pleaded by way of amendment of the written statement that late Satyanarayana executed a registered Will dated 11-10-1973 bequeathing the suit schedule properties in his favour exclusively and by virtue of the said Will, the plaintiff has no right at all in the suit schedule properties. The defendants 2 and 3 filed a memo adopting the written statement of the first defendant. The plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 on her behalf. The first defendant examined himself as DW.1 and examined DWs.2 and 4 on his behalf and marked Exs.B.1 to B.44. Smt. Chittaramma the eldest sister of the parties was examined as CW.1. X1 and X3 were marked through Court. The trial Court framed issues 1 to 10 initially and thereafter, two additional issues were framed. By judgment dated 22-8-2008, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed upholding the family arrangement pleaded by the defendant also the two Wills dated 11-10-1973 and 15-8-1992 relied upon by the first defendant. Now we proceed to consider the merits of the appeal. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the lower Court. At the outset, it is to be noticed that T.Satyanarayana had two wives namely Narsamma and Ramulamma. Smt. Chittaramma, plaintiff and D.1 to D.3 are the children born to Satyanarayana through his first wife Smt.Narsamma. D.2 is the daughter of Satyanarayana through his second wife Smt.Ramulamma. It is to be noticed that Smt.Chittaramma who is admittedly one of the daughters of Satyanarayana is not made a party to the suit. In the absence of Chittaramma whether the suit for partition of the properties is maintainable becomes one of the points for consideration in the appeal. Keeping the same in mind, the following points fall for consideration of the appeal. 1) Whether the suit for partition is maintainable in the absence of Smt. Chittaramma who is admittedly one of the sisters of the plaintiff. 2) Whether the registered will deed dated 10.11.1973 marked as Ex.B42 executed by Satyanarayana in favour of the first defendant is true, valid and binding upon the plaintiff. 3) Whether the will dated 4.8.1992 marked as Ex.B23 executed by Ramulamma in favour of the first defendant is true, valid and binding upon the plaintiff. 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any share in plaint ‘A’ to ‘D’ schedule properties. Point No.1: A reading of the plaint shows that the plaintiff has not disclosed that she has another sister by name Chittaramma who would be entitled to a share in the property in case the suit is to be decreed. There is no reference to Smt. Chittaramma at all time in the entire plaint. The plaint proceeds as if the plaintiff and defendants alone are the children of their father Satyanarayana. A perusal of the written statement and the very examination of Smt. Chittaramma as CW1 clearly shows that Chittaramma was another daughter of Satyanarayana. It was not stated in the plaint as to why Smt. Chittaramma the eldest sister of the plaintiff was not made a party to the suit. On the other hand, the fact of her having the sister by name Smt. Chittaramma is suppressed in the plaint. In a suit for partition, the persons who are said to be sharers have to be made as parties to the suit as every such sharer would be having an interest in every inch of the property. In the absence of Smt. Chittaramma being a party to the suit we are afraid that the suit itself is not maintainable and on this ground the suit is liable to be dismissed. There is suppression of fact of Smt. Chittaramma as the sister of the plaintiff in the plaint. Further there is no pleading in the plaint as to why Smt. Chittaramma was not made a party to the suit. It is one thing to plead that a particular sharer has relinquished his or her right in the property and contend that he or she need not be made a party to the suit. In such a case if the plaintiff succeeds in her contention that the party who is not made a party to the suit has no subsisting right as on the date of filing of the suit, the suit can proceed. However in the absence of a person who is ostensibly having right in the property and if such a person is not made a party to the suit, the suit for partition has to fail in limine as such a suit is not maintainable. Thus we hold that in the absence of Smt. Chittaramma being made a party to the suit, the suit is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground. No doubt Smt. Chittaramma was examined as CW1 and deposed about the family arrangement under which all the sisters got property situated in Sahebnagar exclusively towards their sisters and also related that all the sisters gave up the right in respect of the plaint ‘A’ to ‘D’ schedule properties. Her evidence to that effect during the course of trial does not in any way save the situation for the plaintiff and we feel that whatever be the contention of Smt. Chittaramma CW1, she ought to have been made a party to the suit. Thus, we hold that the suit itself is not maintainable in the absence of Smt. Chittaramma being a party to the suit. Point No.2: The truth and validity of registered will dated 11.10.1973 bearing No.3/1973 registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Hyderabad East executed by T. Satyanarayana in favour of the 1st defendant falls for consideration under this point. It is to be noticed that is a registered will which was not originally pleaded by the first defendant in the written statement. It is only subsequently that there was a pleading with regard to the said will by way of amendment of the written statement. The question is as to whether the said will is true and valid. Before we consider the truth and validity of the will it is not the contention of the plaintiff/appellant that the said will dated 11.101973 is fraudulently created by the defendant and that such a will was never registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Hyderabad East as document No.3/1973. Thus the existence of the will is not an issue before us. Thus there is no dispute that such a will was in fact registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Hyderabad East and bears document No.3/1973. It is to be noticed that T. Satyanarayana died on 10.111973 and Ex.B42 is dated 11.10.1973. That means Satyanarayana died nearly a month after the alleged execution of Ex.B42. It is not the case of the plaintiff that during 1973, there were disputes among the family members. A perusal of record would show that the relationship between the parties were very cordial and there are no circumstances to suspect the execution of Ex.B42 by Satyanarayana in favour of the first defendant. By the date of proving of Ex.B42 before the trial court, both attestors died and the first defendant examined one Syed Hyder Ali on DW3 to prove the signature of his father Ahmed Ali who was one of the attestors of Ex.B42. DW3 identified the signature of his father and to prove his own identity, Exs.X.1 to X.3 were marked. Ex.X.3 is a bonafide certificate issued by the Principal, Government City Junior College, Hyderabad showing that DW.3 is the son of Syed Ahmed Ali, that he was a bonafide student of the college for the years 1979- 1989 and studied intermediate. Ex.X.2 is the certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Death, M.C.H showing that Syed Ahmed Ali died on 11-1-1988. Ex.X.3 is the certificate issued by Electoral Registration Authority of Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad wherein the name of DW.3 was shown as an elector and his father’s name was shown as Syed Ahmed Ali. Thus, Ex.X.1 to X.3 establish the credentials of DW.3 and once he had identified the signatures of his father on Ex.B.42, we see no reason to discredit his evidence. A contention was raised by the counsel for the plaintiff/appellant that a presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act with regard to the Ex.B.41 on the ground that it is more than 30 years is not available to the first defendant. We are convinced that irrespective of such presumption, Ex.B.42 was executed by Satyanarayana in favour of the first defendant bequeathing suit schedule properties in a sound and disposing state of mind. Further we see nothing unnatural in such a bequest by the father in favour of his only son. Once Ex.B.5 is proved in accordance with law, the suit has to failed as it is the case of the plaintiff herself that the suit schedule properties were acquired by Satyanarayana and that he died intestate. The foundation in the plaint is that father Satyanarayana died intestate and that she became one of the heirs-in-law. But once Ex.B.42 a registered Will of Satyanarayana in favour of D1 is upheld, the suit has to tail on this ground also. Point No.3: This point relates to the truth and validity of the Will Ex.B.23 dated 40-801992 alleged to have been executed by late Ramulamma in favouir of the first defendant insofar as ‘C’ and ‘D’ schedule properties are concerned. It is stated in the Written Stastement by the first defendant that ‘C’ and ‘D’ schedule properties stood in the name of Ramulamma and by virtue of Ex.B.23 and that he along with his wife, son and daughter became the legatees. It is to be noticed that D.2 namely Lakshmi Devi is the daughter of Ramulamma and D.2 adopted the written statement of the first defendant supporting Ex.B.23. Even if the Will Ex.B.23 is not taken into consideration, the heir insofar as ‘C’ and ‘D’ schedule properties are concerned would be the second defendant who had not disputed Ex.B.23 and on the other hand adopted the written statement of the first defendant. In the light of the pleading in the plaint that the ‘A’ to ‘D’ schedule properties were acquired by Satyanarayana, either in his name or in the name of his wives, that he died intestate and in the light of our finding on point No.1 and 2, the aspect as to the truth and validity of Ex.B.23 will pale into insignificance especially in the light of the fact that even apart from the Will Ex.B.23, it is D.2 who would succeed to the property of her mother and not the plaintiff. We accordingly answer the point against the plaintiff. Point No.4: While dealing with the point as to whether the plaintiff is entitle to plaint ‘A’ to ‘D’ schedule properties, as already stated, the plaintiff would not have any share by virtue of our findings on points 1 and 2. However, since arguments have been advanced, we have also considered the other aspects of the case. It is a matter of record that Satyanarayana, the father of the parties had Ac.81-26 guntas in S.No.200 of Sahebnagar village out of which Satyanarayana during his life time sold away Ac.41-26 guntas and the balance remained was Ac.40-00 in Sahebnagar village. At this juncture, it is also to be noticed that late Satyanarayana was also having Ac.64-21 guntas inThummabowli village comprising ‘A’ schedule property. In this context it is to be stated that there is no reference to the property of Satyanarayana owned by him in Sahebnagar village so far as the plaint is concerned. It is to be further noticed from the record that after the death of Satyanarayana, the first defendant was looking after the family affairs and he got divided the land situated inThummabowli comprising ‘A’ schedule into plots under a sanctioned layout to the extent of Ac.31-21 guntas and all the sisters including the plaintiff and also Ramulamma executed a common registered General Power of Attorney dated 1-9-1980 in favour of the first defendant authorizing him to sell the plots in the sanctioned layout. It is also to be seen from the record that all the sisters including Smt.Chittaramma who is not made a party to the suit entered into an agreement dated 24-7-1980 marked as Ex.B.1 whereunder all the sisters agreed to share the property situated in Sahebnagar Kalan among themselves equally to the exclusion of the first defendant. It is a case of the first defendant that he has given up his share in Sahebnagar village and as all the sisters having agreed to enjoy the same among themselves in turn relinquished their rights in the ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. A perusal of the record shows that there is no such family arrangement forthcoming as pleaded by the first defendant. If really such a family arrangement was there, the plaintiff would not have executed a registered gift deed dated 15-4-1983 in favour of T.Shiva Kumar who is the youngest son of first defendant, to the extent of plaintiff’s share admeasuring Ac.6-24 guntas in ‘A’ schedule property. It is also to be noticed that the plaintiff and her sisters jointly sold Ac.32-00 out of ac.40-00 in S.No.200 of Sahebnagar village and subsequently O.S.No.597/2000 came to be filed on the file of the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District among the sisters wherein a final decree was passed on 22-12-2000. The filing of such a suit for partition by the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 against their elder sisters Smt.Chittaramma would show that they were content with the property that was exclusively enjoyed by them to the exclusion of the first defendant. There is no reference to the filing of O.S.597 of 2000 by the plaintiff in the plaint. We feel that the plaintiff ought to have referred to the nature of the property in Sahebnagar village, the agreement among the sisters on 24-7-1980, the filing of O.S.597 of 2000 by the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R District before claiming a share in the suit ‘A’ to ‘D’ schedule properties. Having filed such a suit for partition claiming share only with regard to Sahebnagar village, we feel that the plaintiff is precluded from filing another suit for partition with regard to ‘A’ to ‘D’ schedule properties. Further there is no reference to the registered gift deed dated 15-4-1983 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the youngest son of the first defendant in the plaint. Having executed a registered gift deed in respect of her share of the property out of ‘A’ schedule, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to state the same in the plaint. By virtue of the registered gift deed dated 15-4-1983 executed by the plaintiff, she has no further right in ‘A’ schedule properties. Further, there is no whisper about the said document executed by the plaintiff in the plaint. Insofar as ‘B’ schedule properties are concerned, we feel that no further adjudication is necessary in view of our findings on point Nos.1 and 2. So far as ‘C’ and ‘D’ schedule properties are concerned, they were dealt with while considering Point No.3. In view of the above circumstances, we do not find any merits in the appeal and the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. __________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO,J) ____________________ (P.DURGA PRASAD,J) dated:30-04-2011 grk ] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD (Judgment of