N. PADMAMMA & ORS. versus S. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 10 S.C.R. 641 · Decided: 23-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014) 10 S.C.R. 641 
N. PADMAMMA & ORS. 
v. 
S. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3632 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 
[T.S. THAKUR, C. NAGAPPAN AND 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
Partition: Suit for partition - Maintainability of - Whether 
A 
B 
a suit for partition for division of respective shares amongst C 
the members of a joint family is maintainable, when in respect 
of some of the lands, occupancy right has been granted in 
favour of one of them in terms of the provisions of the Act of 
1955 - Held: lnam lands granted in favour of one of the heir 
upon abolition of the inam under the Act of 1955 are partiable D 
among the co-heirs - Suit for partition is maintainable -
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of lnams Act, 
1955. 
Partition: Possession of a co-heir - Held: Is treated as E 
possession of all the co-heirs. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. As per Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh 
(Telangana Area) Abolition of lnams Act, 1955, all inam F 
lands stood vested in the State of Andhra Pradesh with 
effect from 20th July, 1955, the date when the Act came 
into force. The inam land in dispute had continued to be 
in possession of the father of the parties 'RR' till his 
demise in the year 1968 whereupon the rights and G 
privileges in regard to the same including those that 
would have entitled father of the parties to claim 
occupancy rights under the Act on account of his being 
in cultivating occupation of the land on the date of the 
641 
H 
642 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
vesting were inherited by his legal heirs. Respondent 
No.1 was the only male member in the family left behind 
by the deceased. Any recognition of his being in 
possession and personal cultivation of the land held by 
his father was, in the absence of any plea or proof of 
B 
ouster, to be taken as cultivation on behalf of the entire 
family, and not in his individual capacity. Grant of 
occupancy rights to Respondent No.1 as the only male 
member of the family, could not result in the extinction 
of the rights of the appellants who had an equal claim in 
c no way inferior to that of respondent No.1 to succeed to 
estate left behind by the deceased including succession 
to all such rights that may have been inchoate on the date 
of the demise of his father but as could result in a 
beneficial grant in his favour based on his being an 
0 
lnamdar. [para 1 O] [650-F-H; 651-A-E] 
2. It is fairly well settled principle of law that the 
possession of a co-heir is in law treated as possession 
of all the co-heirs. If one co-heir has come in possession 
of the properties, it is presumed to be on the basis of a 
E joint title. A co-heir in possession cannot render its 
possession adverse to other co-heirs not in possession, 
merely by any secret hostile animus on his own part, in 
derogation of the title of his other co-heirs. Ouster of the 
other co-heirs must be evidenced by hostile title coupled 
F 
by exclusive possession and enjoyment of one of them 
to the knowledge of the other. lnam lands granted in 
favour of respondent no.1 upon abolition of the inam 
under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of 
lnams Act, 1955 are, therefore, partiable among the heirs 
G left behind by 'RR'. [paras 11, 17] [652-B-D; 656-A-B] 
H 
P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy AIR 1957 SC 
314:1957 SCR 195; Bhubaneshwar Prasad Narain Singh 
and Ors. v. Sidheswar Mukherjee and Ors. (1971) 1 SCC 556; 
Kalgonda Babgonda Patil v. Balgonda Kalgonda Patil and 
N. PADMAMMA v. S. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY 
643 
Ors. 1989 Supp (1) SCC 246; Shivappa Tammannappa 
A 
Karaban v. Parasappa Hanammappa Kuraban and Ors. 1995 
Supp (1) sec 162: 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 762 - relied on. 
N. Padmamma and Ors. v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy and 
Ors. (2008) 15 SCC 517: 2008 (9) SCR 535 - referred to. 
B 
Corea v. Appuhamy 1912 AC 230 - referred to. 
Lokraj and Ors. v. Kishan Lal and Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 
291 :1995 (1) SCR 193 - disapproved. 
Case Law Reference: 
2008 (9) SCR 535 
referred to 
Para 1 
1912 AC 230 
referred to 
Para 11 
1957 SCR 195 
relied on 
Para 11 
(1971) 1 sec 556 
relied on 
Para 12 
1989 Supp (1) sec 246 
relied on 
Para 13 
1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 762 
relied on 
Para 14 
1995 (1) SCR 193 
disapproved 
Para 15 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
3632 of 2008. 
c 
D 
E 
From the Judgment and order dated 11.08.2006 in LPA 
F 
No. 3/1993 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 
Rakesh Dwivedi, Sridhar Potaraju, Y. Srin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.