Order VI Rule 2 CPC | Partial Partition Suit Must Include All Coparcenary Property : AP HC Dismisses Appeal for Non-Inclusion of Gifted Acres

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a second appeal challenging concurrent findings of lower courts that a suit for partial partition of joint family property was not maintainable. The court held that the plaintiff's suppression of material facts - specifically, the omission of 9.46½ acres of coparcenary property already settled via registered gift deeds - rendered the suit legally unsustainable. The judgment reaffirms that a partition suit must include all joint family properties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure equitable distribution.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, Bonkuru Radha Rani, filed a suit (O.S. No. 116 of 2003) before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, seeking partition of plaint schedule properties into five equal shares and allotment of one share to herself. The properties in dispute were claimed to be joint family assets, with the appellant, her sisters (defendant Nos. 2 and 3), and the daughters of her deceased sister (defendant Nos. 4 and 5) as coparceners. The appellant alleged that defendant No. 1 (her father) had illicitly alienated portions of the property to defendant Nos. 6 - 8 without the consent of other coparceners.

Key Facts

• Family Structure: Defendant No. 1 (father) had four daughters: the appellant, defendant Nos. 2 and 3, and late Bhimireddy Sivamma (mother of defendant Nos. 4 and 5).
• Ancestral Property: Defendant No. 1 inherited Ac. 22.06 cents of ancestral land, including item Nos. 1 and 7 of the plaint schedule.
• Gift Settlement Deeds: On 20.04.2002 and 22.04.2002, defendant No. 1 executed registered gift deeds (Exs. B-1 to B-3) settling:
  • Ac. 3.16½ cents to the appellant (Ex. B-1),
  • Ac. 3.00 cents to defendant No. 2 (Ex. B-2),
  • Ac. 3.30 cents to his wife (Ex. B-3).
• Alienations:
  • Defendant No. 1 sold item Nos. 2 - 4 to defendant No. 7 under a registered sale deed dated 14.02.2003 (Ex. B-20).
  • Defendant No. 7 gifted Ac. 2.27 cents to defendant No. 6 on 22.02.2003.
  • Defendant No. 6 sold item No. 7 to defendant No. 8 on 27.09.2001 (Ex. B-22).
• Litigation Timeline:
  • 18.06.2003: Suit filed (O.S. No. 116 of 2003).
  • 17.02.2010: Trial Court dismissed the suit.
  • 23.08.2011: First Appellate Court (A.S. No. 14 of 2010) upheld dismissal.
  • 2011: Second Appeal (S.A. No. 1580 of 2011) filed before High Court.
  • 15.04.2026: Hearing concluded.
  • 15.06.2026: Judgment pronounced.

Procedural History

• Trial Court (O.S. No. 116 of 2003):
  • Issues Framed:
    1. Whether plaint schedule properties are joint family properties?
    2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition?
    3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits?
    4. To what relief?
    5. (Additional Issues): Sufficiency of court fee, correctness of item No. 6’s extent, and status of item No. 7.
  • Evidence: PWs 1 - 6 examined; Exs. A-1 to A-20 marked. DWs 1 - 8 examined; Exs. B-1 to B-27 marked.
  • Judgment: Suit dismissed on 17.02.2010.
• First Appellate Court (A.S. No. 14 of 2010):
  • Points for Consideration:
    1. Sustainability of dismissal for partial partition without a specific issue.
    2. Whether alienations via settlement deeds sever joint family status.
  • Judgment: Appeal dismissed on 23.08.2011, confirming trial court’s findings.
• High Court (S.A. No. 1580 of 2011):
  • Substantial Questions of Law:
    1. Whether lower courts erred in dismissing the suit for partial partition.
    2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to benefit under amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.
  • Interlocutory Applications:
    • I.A. No. 2 of 2024: Sought amendment to include item Nos. 8 - 10 in plaint schedule.
    • I.A. No. 3 of 2024: Sought preliminary decree for partition of item Nos. 1 - 10 into 25 shares.

The Parties' Positions

For the Appellant

• Contended that the suit properties were joint family assets, purchased from ancestral nucleus.
• Argued that defendant No. 1’s alienations (item Nos. 2 - 4 to defendant No. 7 and item No. 7 to defendant No. 8) were illegal.
• Relied on precedents (Devabhaktuni Sithamahalakshmamma v. Pamulapati Kotayya, B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar) to argue that partial partition is impermissible when coparcenary property is omitted.

For the Respondents

• Defendant No. 1: Claimed item Nos. 2 - 6 were self-acquired, purchased from personal earnings. Asserted that gift deeds (Exs. B-1 to B-3) were executed in 2002 to settle family disputes.
• Defendant Nos. 6 & 7: Argued they were bona fide purchasers for value. Item No. 7 was possessed by defendant No. 6 since 1984 and sold to defendant No. 8 in 2001.
• Defendant No. 8: Claimed item No. 7 was acquired via a 1984 gift deed from defendant No. 1 and sold to her in 2001 for Rs. 60,000.
• Respondent No. 5 (Defendant No. 5): Filed I.A. Nos. 2 & 3 of 2024 seeking amendment to include item Nos. 8 - 10 and a preliminary decree, arguing she was entitled to 3/25th share under amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.

Relief Sought

• Primary Relief: Partition of plaint schedule properties (Ac. 11.19 cents) into five equal shares.
• Additional Reliefs:
  • Mesne profits from the date of suit.
  • Costs of litigation.
• I.A. No. 2 of 2024: Amendment to include item Nos. 8 - 10 in plaint schedule.
• I.A. No. 3 of 2024: Preliminary decree for partition of item Nos. 1 - 10 into 25 shares.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether a suit for partial partition is maintainable when the plaintiff omits coparcenary property (Ac. 9.46½ cents) already settled via registered gift deeds, and whether such suppression vitiates the suit under Order VI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

• Relied on Devabhaktuni Sithamahalakshmamma v. Pamulapati Kotayya (AIR 1936 Madras 825) to argue that a father’s gift to daughters must be reasonable.
• Cited B.R. Patil v. Tulsa Y. Sawkar (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 165) to contend that partial partition is impermissible when coparcenary property is omitted.
• Argued that defendant No. 1’s alienations were illegal as they lacked consent of coparceners.

For the Respondents

• Defendant Nos. 6 & 7: Contended they were bona fide purchasers. Cited Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary (AIR 1967 SC 1124) to argue that joint family status can be severed by unilateral intention.
• Respondent No. 5: Argued she was entitled to a share under amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and sought amendment of plaint schedule to include item Nos. 8 - 10.
• Defendant No. 1: Claimed item Nos. 2 - 6 were self-acquired and that gift deeds (Exs. B-1 to B-3) were executed to settle family disputes.

The Court's Analysis

The High Court analyzed the following key principles:

1. Partial Partition Impermissibility:

   • The court relied on Kenchegowda v. Siddegowda ((1994) 4 SCC 294) and Eda Mary v. Ydela Elzebeth Rani (2019 (1) ALT 273) to hold that a suit for partial partition is not maintainable if it omits coparcenary property or co-sharers.
   • The appellant’s omission of Ac. 9.46½ cents (settled via Exs. B-1 to B-3) from the plaint schedule was fatal to the suit.

2. Suppression of Material Facts:

   • Under Order VI Rule 2 CPC, a plaintiff must disclose all material facts. The appellant’s failure to plead the gift deeds (Exs. B-1 to B-3) and the alienation of item No. 7 (gifted in 1984 and sold in 2001) constituted suppression, rendering the suit unsustainable.
   • The court cited Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul (AIR 1966 SC 735) to emphasize that relief cannot be granted if material facts are suppressed.

3. Concurrent Findings of Lower Courts:

   • The High Court noted that it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or contrary to law (Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, AIR 1999 SC 471).
   • The trial court and first appellate court had correctly dismissed the suit on the ground of partial partition impermissibility and suppression of facts.

4. Interlocutory Applications (I.A. Nos. 2 & 3 of 2024):

   • I.A. No. 2 of 2024: The court dismissed the application to amend the plaint schedule, holding that:
     • The petitioner (respondent No. 5) remained ex-parte throughout the trial and first appeal.
     • The proposed amendment sought to include properties alienated during pendency of the second appeal (e.g., defendant No. 2’s sale of Ac. 1.50 cents in 2016), creating third-party rights.
     • The delay of 21 years was unexplained, and the amendment would prejudice other parties.
   • I.A. No. 3 of 2024: The court dismissed the application for a preliminary decree, holding that:
     • Order 20 Rule 18 CPC applies only where a decree for partition is passed, not in a dismissed suit.
     • The petitioner’s claim for a 3/25th share under amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act was unsustainable as she had not contested the suit or first appeal.

5. Evidence Appreciation:

   • The court noted that defendant No. 1 failed to prove that item Nos. 2 - 6 were purchased from self-acquired income. The recitals in Ex. B-1 (gift deed) indicated that defendant No. 1 inherited Ac. 22.06 cents of ancestral property, raising a presumption that item Nos. 2 - 6 were purchased from ancestral nucleus.
   • The alienation of item No. 7 in 1984 (18 years before the suit) and its subsequent sale in 2001 were within the appellant’s knowledge but omitted from the plaint.

The Verdict

The High Court dismissed the second appeal (S.A. No. 1580 of 2011) and Interlocutory Applications (I.A. Nos. 2 & 3 of 2024), confirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The court held:

1. The suit for partial partition was not maintainable due to the omission of Ac. 9.46½ cents of coparcenary property settled via gift deeds (Exs. B-1 to B-3).
2. The appellant’s suppression of material facts (e.g., gift deeds, alienation of item No. 7) vitiated the suit under Order VI Rule 2 CPC.
3. The petitioner (respondent No. 5) was not entitled to amend the plaint schedule or seek a preliminary decree, as she remained ex-parte throughout the trial and first appeal.
4. No costs were awarded to any party.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Partial Partition Suit Must Include All Coparcenary Property

• Legal Principle: A suit for partition must include all joint family properties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings (Kenchegowda v. Siddegowda, (1994) 4 SCC 294).
• Practical Takeaway:
  • Plaintiffs must disclose all coparcenary properties in the plaint schedule, including those settled via gift deeds or alienations.
  • Omission of even a single property can render the suit legally unsustainable.

Suppression of Material Facts is Fatal

• Legal Principle: Under Order VI Rule 2 CPC, a plaintiff must plead all material facts. Suppression of facts (e.g., gift deeds, prior alienations) can vitiate the suit (Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735).
• Practical Takeaway:
  • Parties must disclose all transactions (e.g., gift deeds, sales) involving joint family property, even if they occurred decades prior.
  • Courts may draw adverse inferences against parties who suppress material facts.

Amendment of Pleadings: Timing and Prejudice Matter

• Legal Principle: Amendments to pleadings are permissible if they do not prejudice the other party and are necessary for determining real controversies (Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil, AIR 1957 SC 363).
• Practical Takeaway:
  • Delay in seeking amendments (e.g., 21 years after suit filing) must be adequately explained.
  • Amendments that create third-party rights (e.g., alienations during pendency) are unlikely to be allowed.
  • Courts may reject amendments if they prejudice other parties or delay proceedings.

Concurrent Findings: Limited Scope for Interference

• Legal Principle: High Courts cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse, contrary to law, or based on inadmissible evidence (Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, AIR 1999 SC 471).
• Practical Takeaway:
  • Appellants must demonstrate legal errors in lower courts’ findings to succeed in second appeals.
  • Suppression of facts or procedural irregularities (e.g., partial partition) can be grounds for interference.