gyggg

1. IN THE COURT OF THE HONOURABLE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT:: ZAHEERABAD.
O.S.No. OF 2023.
Between:
Paldigummal Sarala W/o. P. Laxman
D/o. P. Rathaiah Aged: 32 Years, Occ: Household
R/o. H.No.3-2, Ekkaldevikunta Village,
Mandal Kohir, District Sangareddy.
… Plaintiff
AND
Paldigummal Ashamma W/o. P. Rathaiah
Aged: 52 Years, Occ: Household
R/o. H.No.3-52, Ekkaldevikunta Village,
Mandal Kohir, District Sangareddy
… Defendant
CLAIM: - Suit for partition and separate possession by allotting the 1/2th
share to the plaintiff and defendant from the suit schedule A and B
Property.
PLAINT FILED U/s.26, Or.VII, RULES 1 & 2, R/w.151 C.P.C
May it please your Honour
I. Description of Plaintiff:-
The description of plaintiff for the purpose of service of process
i.e., summons, notices, etc., is as shown in the above cause title, and
that of her counsel M/S M. Shashikanth Advocate, Zaheerabad.
II. Description of defendants:-
The description of defendants for the purpose of service of
process i.e., summons, notices, etc., is as shown in the above cause
title.

2. The Plaintiff humbly submits that:
1. The Plaintiff humbly submits that the plaintiff and
defendant constitute Hindu undivided joint family coparcenary
members. Originally one Late Rangaiah was the common ancestor to
the Plaintiff and defendant the common ancestor Late Rangaiah was
the absolute owner, Possessor and title holder of the Agricultural land
in Sy.No. 70/2 admeasuring to the extent of an Ac. 02.00.½ guntas
situated at Kohir village and Mandal, Sangareddy District, Telangana
State. Hereinafter the said land shall be referred to as Suit Schedule
“A” property which is more fully described and delineated in the
schedule annexed to the plaint.
2. The Plaintiff humbly submits that the Originally Late Rangaiah was
the absolute owner, Possessor and title holder of Agricultural land in
Sy.No. 70/2 admeasuring to the extent of an Ac. 02.00.½ guntas
situated at Kohir village and Mandal, Sangareddy District, Telangana
State, who was died long back and leaving behind his legal heirs his
only son Late Rathaiah also died leaving behind his legal heirs his wife
Smt Ashamma (Defendant) and his Daughter Smt Sarala (Plaintiff).
For the better understanding the family pedigree is as follows.
Rangaiah
(Common ancestor)
(Died long back)
Yellamma (Wife)
(Died)
Rathaiah (Son)
(Died)
Ashamma (Wife of Rathaiah) Sarala (Daughter of Rathaiah)
(Defendant) (Plaintiff)

3. 3. It is submitted that during the life time of late Rangaiah he used to
cultivate the suit schedule property and used to contribute the crop
share every year to his family during his life time and after the demise
of the said Late Rangaiah his Son Late Ramamma being the sole legal
heir used to take care of the agil operations and used to contribute the
crop share every year among plaintiff and defendant, later due to
ill-health Late Rangaiah died, after the demise of Rangaiah the
Plaintiff and defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment of the
Suit schedule property. But after the demise of the Late Rangaiah the
Defendant as elder of the family used to take care of the agriculture
operations and used to distribute the crop share to plaintiff and
plaintiff and defendant purchased a Semi finished House through Sale
deed Doc. No. 2263/2021 for an extent of 141.77 Sq Yards situated at
Mallkapur Garm Panchayath, Kondapur Mandal, Sangareddy District
in the name of defendant from the Joint Family funds selling the crops
yields earned from Suit Schedule “A” Property which is in joint
possession of Plaintiff and Defendant, Plaintiff and defendant
constructed remaining Part of House bearing No. 3-52 in the said
open plot out of Joint family funds the said house bearing No.3-52
for an extent of 141.77 Sq Yards situated at Mallkapur Garm
Panchayath, Kondapur Mandal, Sangareddy District. Hereinafter the
said land shall be referred to as Suit Schedule “B” property which is
more fully described and delineated in the schedule annexed to the
plaint.
4. It is submitted that the suit schedule property is the Hindu undivided
joint family coparcenary propert of the plaintiff and defendant. The
plaintiff and defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment the suit
schedule A and B properties.
5. It is submitted that the Defendant as elder of the family used to take
care of the agriculture operations and used to distribute the crop
share as per their shares shared the crop share now & then crop

4. share to an extract in the form of cash till December 2022, as such
plaintiff came to suit schedule A and B properties on March, 2023 and
tried to cultivate her extent of share in the Suit schedule A property
but the defendant stopped plaintiff from entering into the Suit
schedule A property, as such plaintiff conducted panchayath in the
village in respect of division of the suit schedule property and for
allotment of 1/2 share, but the defendant did not pay heed to the
Plaintiff request and postponed the same on one pretext or the other.
6. It is submitted that as per the principles of Hindu Law of inheritance
the plaintiff and defendant are entitled for 1/2th share each, in the suit
schedule property. It is submitted that Plaintiff came to know through
some villagers that the defendant is trying to alienate the suit
schedule properties to third parties as such are roaming around the
Tahasildar office, Kohir Mandal to book slot with respect to Suit
Schedule A property without providing share to the Plaintiff by
doubting the integrity of the defendant the plaintiff has made
reasonable search in the Meeseva & obtained encumbrance certificate
to the utter surprise of the plaintiff came to on 31-05-2023 that after
the death of father of plaintiff the late Rathaiah the defendant
illegally transferred the suit schedule A property in her name
fraudently on the back & behind of the plaintiff to deprive the
legitimate share of the plaintiff. As there is no notice was served to
plaintiff while transfer of property as such when the plaintiff got the
knowledge of the said fact when she obtained certified copies of said
documents.
7. It is submitted that as per the principles of Hindu Law of inheritance
the plaintiffs are entitled for the 1/2th share to the plaintiff and 1/2th
share to Defendant each from the suit schedule A and B properties. As
the plaintiff is sole legal heir of late Rathaiah and also as per Sec 6 of
Hindu Secession Act, plaintiff is a Class I legal heir of Late Rathaiah,

5. as per Hon’ble Supreme Court citation i.e., Vineeta Sharma vs
Rakesh Sharma on 11 August, 2020 in Civil Appeal No. DIARY
NO.32601 OF 2018, the Hon’ble Apex Court has Clearly cited
that the daughter has equal right in ancestors property,
a. The Parliament intended to confer the status of a coparcener from the birth of a
daughter. However, it was never intended to confer her the rights in the
coparcenary property retrospectively, for the following reasons:
b. Section 6(1)(a) deals with the inclusion of a daughter in the coparcenary "on and
from the commencement of amendment Act 2005, w.e.f. 9.9.2005;
c. The operating part of section 6(1) controls not only clause (a) but also clauses (b)
and (c); c. Hence the daughter who is declared as coparcener from 9.9.205 would
have the right in a coparcenary property only from 9.9.2005;
d. Equally, a daughter who is now coparcener will be subject to the same liabilities in
respect of property only from 9.9.2005.
8. It is further submits that as per Sec 6 (1) (a) (b) and (c) that the
daughter as equal and coparcener in the ancestor property, as
the defendant as trying to alienate the suit Schedule A and B
properties in the name of third parties and the plaintiff is in joint
possession and enjoyment of the suit lands. And the suit schedule
properties are not the self-acquired properties of defendant and the
same are Hindu undivided joint family properties of the plaintiff and
defendant, defendant with an evil intention and to get wrongful gain
and cause wrongful loss to plaintiff intending to convey the suit
schedule properties in favour of third parties, in order to deprive the
legitimate share and entitlement of the plaintiff over her share for
which she have no right to do so. In the event if the defendant
succeeded in her attempts, there is every possibility of leading to
multiplicity of proceedings. The suit properties are not yet partitioned
between plaintiff and defendant with metes and bounds. The plaintiff
after knowing about the evil intention of defendant orally demanded to

6. partition the suit property by separate metes and bounds but she
refused to do so, as such, there is no other alternate except to
approach this Hon’ble Court by filing the present suit for partition
with separate possession of the suit properties. These are the facts
which constitute cause of action.
9. The plaintiff is having prima-facie case and balance of convenience in
her favour, and if the suit for partition and separate possession is not
decreed, the plaintiff will be put to heavy and irreparable loss.
10. CAUSE OF ACTION:- The cause of action arose at Kohir Village
and Mandal, Sangareddy District on December and finally on
31.05.2023 when the plaintiff came to know that the defendant is
making hectic efforts to alienate the suit properties, and immediately
the plaintiff orally demanded the defendant to affect partition, but the
defendant failed to do so, constitute the cause of action to file the suit
by the plaintiff.
11. JURISDICTION:- The suit properties are located within the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, and hence this Hon’ble Court got
pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
12. DECLARATION:- The plaintiff hereby declares that she has not
filed any other suit or any other proceedings are pending against the
defendants in respect of same relief in any other Court except this
Hon’ble Court.
1. COURT FEE:- As per the valuation obtained from Dharani Portal the
value of the suit schedule property comes to Rs.2,25,000/- per acre,
Value of Suit Schedule “A” Property comes to Rs. 4,52,813/- and
value of suit schedule “B” Property comes to _______________________
and total value of both the properties comes to Rs
______________________1/2th share value of the plaintiff comes to
______________________________ and 3/4th of which comes to

7. ___________________________, and since the plaintiffs are seeking the
relief of partition and separate possession, as such, a fixed court fee of
Rs. 200/- is paid U/s.34(2) r/w 50 of Telangana Court Fees and Suits
Valuation Act as the plaintiffs and defendants are in joint possession
of suit schedule property.
13. PRAYER:
Therefore it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass
the judgment and decree in terms as follows:-
1. Pass a preliminary decree partitioning the suit schedule “A” and “B”
properties by allotting the 1/2th share to the plaintiff and 1/2th share
to Defendant from the suit schedule “A” and “B” properties.
2. To appoint Advocate-Commissioner, in final decree proceedings for
partitioning the suit properties with metes and bounds.
3. To award costs of the suit.
4. And pass such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the circumstances of the case
Place :
Date : - . Plaintiff
VERIFICATION:-
I, the above named plaintiff do hereby declare that what all stated in
the above fore going Paras are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief. Hence verified.
Place :Zaheerabad.
Date : Plaintiff