High Court Dismisses Second Appeal and Confirms Partition of Disputed Madanapalle House as Half Share

A single‑judge bench of Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao heard a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure arising from competing claims of title and partition in respect of house properties in Ranga Reddy Street, Madanapalle. The appeal challenged the VII Additional District Judge’s modification of a trial court decree that had originally declared full title in favour of the plaintiff; the primary issues included the validity of an adoption, the effect of sale deeds dated 1963 and 1966, and the scope of a registered Will dated 30.09.1978.

The High Court dismissed the second appeal and confirmed the first appellate court’s decree granting the plaintiff an undivided half share in the suit schedule properties (Door Nos.8/1, 8/2 and 8/3), holding that no substantial question of law arose for its interference under Section 100 CPC. The Court emphasised the settled limitation on interference with findings of fact on second appeal. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The law is well settled that under Section 100 of CPC, High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact arrived at by first appellate Court, which is final Court of facts, except in such cases where such findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, or its settled position on the basis of the pronouncement made by the Apex Court or based upon inadmissible evidence or without evidence." The judgment further noted that "this second appeal did not involve any substantial question of law for determination."

Background

The dispute concerned title to house portions bearing Door Nos.8/1, 8/2 and 8/3 and an adjoining Door No.8/29. The plaintiffs traced title to transactions with A.G. Krishna Murthy — alleged to be the adopted son of the original owner Akuthota Ganganna — who, according to the plaint, executed mortgage and sale deeds in 1962, 1963 and 1966 in favour of the original plaintiff. The plaintiffs initially sought a declaration of title and possession or, alternatively, partition of half share and delivery of separate possession.

Defendants contested the adoption, pleaded that A.G. Krishna Murthy never acquired absolute title, and relied on a registered Will dated 30.09.1978 executed by Akuthota Lakshmamma (Ganganna’s third wife), claiming rights by succession. The trial court, after evidence and oral testimony, declared the plaintiffs’ title and granted possession; the first appellate court modified that decree and awarded partition, holding that the vendor had only an undivided half share and that the plaintiffs were entitled to that half share. The appellants challenged the appellate finding before the High Court, contending perverse factual conclusions and arguing the suit was barred by limitation.

The High Court reviewed pleadings, documentary exhibits (including the decree in O.S.No.72 of 1950), and oral evidence. The Court observed that the 1950 decree — which was not appealed and attained finality — supported the adoption/possession premise relied upon by the plaintiffs and that the registered Will of 1978 could not confer more than the testatrix’s half share. The Court considered authorities on the scope of interference under Section 100 CPC (including Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh and Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar) and found no infirmity warranting reversal of the first appellate court’s factual conclusions. The High Court therefore held that the second appeal did not raise a substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal, confirming the first appellate court’s partition decree. Each party was directed to bear its own costs and pending applications stood closed.

Case Details: Case No.: Second Appeal No.1326 of 2012 NeutralCitation: 2026:APHC:19329 Case Title: A.g.ramalaskhmama and Others v. Gattu Lakshmamma and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): V B Subrahmanyam For the Respondent(s): Mahadeva Kanthirigala