The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a second appeal filed by a son challenging a decree that granted shares in ancestral property to his sisters and other family members. The Court found no substantial question of law requiring interference and upheld the judgment of the first appellate court.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a partition suit filed before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The plaintiffs sought division of two family properties, claiming they were ancestral assets belonging to the family.
According to the plaintiffs, six daughters were born to the first plaintiff through his second wife, while the defendant was the son from the first marriage. They sought partition of the properties into equal shares.
The defendant opposed the suit, disputing the status of the daughters and claiming that their mother was not legally married to the first plaintiff. He also relied on an alleged relinquishment deed said to have been executed by the father in his favour.
The trial court dismissed the suit. However, the first appellate court reversed that decision and granted the relief of partition, leading the defendant to approach the High Court.
Court's Observations
Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao examined the evidence and noted that the father had consistently acknowledged the six women as his daughters in both the plaint and his testimony.
The Court observed that a legal notice issued before the suit specifically described the daughters as children born through the second wife. The defendant received that notice but did not send any reply denying the relationship.
“The defendant did not even choose to send a reply denying the paternity of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7,”
the Court noted while discussing the evidence.
The High Court also found that the alleged relinquishment deed, heavily relied upon by the defendant, was never produced before the trial court.
The Court held that the burden of proving the document and its contents was on the defendant. Since the document was not exhibited or proved, the claim based on it could not be accepted.
Decision
Concluding that the findings of the first appellate court were based on proper appreciation of evidence, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
“The findings do not require to be upset,”
the Court observed.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court granting partition of the ancestral properties among the entitled family members.
Case Details:
Case Title: T. Satyanarayana v. Turangi Somaraju (Died) & Others
Case Number: Second Appeal No. 817 of 2012
Judge: Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao
Decision Date: 15 June 2026
