UPPARI VENKATARARNUDU Vs. UPPARI NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition challenges the docket order dtd. 13/9/2023 in O.S. No. 311 of 2014 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, under which the unregistered gift deed was sent for impounding to collect stamp duty and penalty. The said order directed defendant No. 2 (DW-1) to pay the deficit stamp duty and a penalty of Rs.1,100.00 for receiving the same in evidence for collateral purposes.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the petitioners and respondents hereinafter, are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants, as arrayed before the Court below.

(3.) The plaintiffs and the defendants constitute one family. Defendant No. 1 is the father of the plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 and 3. The plaintiffs filed suit for partition. The plaintiffs contend that the defendant No. 1 was the only son of one Sri. uppari Anjaneya @ Moogenna. Sri uppari Anjaneya @ Moogenna, plaintiffs and the defendants constitute one family and father of defendant No. 1 had possessed house properties and agricultural lands. And that he also owned Ac. 12.00 of land in Sy. No. 60/1 of Baswapuram Village (plaint schedule land). From the total area of Ac. 12.00, the defendant inherited Ac. 6- 00 from his ancestors. He then purchased the remaining Ac. 6.00 in the name of his son (D-1) on [27/3/1997], using joint family funds. The plaintiffs contend that in pursuance of an oral partition that was agreed on 8/5/2003, Sri. uppari Anjaneya @ Moogenna, partitioned all his properties situated in Ulchala Village, among his son (D-1) and grandchildren (plaintiffs and D Nos. 2 & 3) and the same was reduced into writing and he kept the Ac. 12-00 of land in Sy. No. 60/1 of Baswapuram village, for himself (plaint schedule land).it is contended that in the said partition, plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2, respectively, got the properties as shown in the C & D schedule of the partition deed. Similarly, it is stated that defendant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 got the A, B & E schedule properties respectively towards their share. Ever since the partition, all of the coparceners are stated to have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares whereas Sri. uppari Anjaneya @ Moogenna was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land till his intestate death. The further contention of the plaintiffs is that after the death of Sri. uppari Anjaneya @ Moogenna, the plaint schedule land has been in joint possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs and the defendants, who got 1/5th joint share each and on coming to know that defendant No. 2 had been pressurizing defendant No. 1 to immediately transfer the plaint schedule land in his name, it is stated that the 1st plaintiff got issued a legal notice dtd. 15/5/2014, to defendant Nos. 1 & 2, to refrain from doing so and to immediately partition the land among all the coparceners. It is stated that the plaintiff, apprehending that defendant No. 1 may at any time transfer the entire plaint schedule land in the name of defendant No. 2, though he has no right or title to do so, filed the subject suit.