Hindu Law — Partition — Finality of partition — Re-opening — Principles
A partition effected between members of a Hindu Undivided Family by free will and volition cannot be reopened, unless it is established that the partition was obtained by fraud, coercion, misrepresentation or undue influence.
Mere inequality of shares does not justify reopening.
Paras 30–35
Partition — Exceptional circumstances permitting reopening
Partition may be reopened only in limited circumstances, namely:
-
Fraud, coercion, misrepresentation or undue influence; or
-
Where minors are parties and the partition is unjust, unfair and detrimental to their interests.
The burden lies heavily on the party seeking reopening.
Paras 32–35, 48–50
Fraud — Pleading and proof — Mandatory requirement
Fraud must be:
-
Specifically pleaded;
-
Supported by material particulars as required under Order VI Rule 4 CPC; and
-
Proved by cogent and convincing evidence.
Bald allegations or mere use of the word “fraud” are legally insufficient.
Paras 42–47
Civil Procedure Code — Order VI Rule 4 — Particulars of fraud
In cases alleging fraud, pleadings must disclose:
-
Specific acts;
-
Dates;
-
Manner of deception;
-
Material concealment or misrepresentation.
In absence of such pleadings, no evidence on fraud is admissible.
Paras 42–45
Fraud — Effect — Judicial acts
Fraud vitiates all judicial acts.
A decree or transaction obtained by fraud is a nullity; however, fraud must first be established in accordance with law.
Paras 39–47
Partition deed — Registered document — Presumption of validity
Registered partition deeds and settlement deeds, when acted upon, carry strong evidentiary value.
Such documents cannot be lightly set aside in absence of strict proof of fraud.
Paras 51–60
Revenue records — Presumption of correctness
Entries in revenue records carry statutory presumption of correctness under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, until rebutted by cogent evidence.
Paras 66–67
Minor’s interest — Reopening of partition
Partition involving minors is binding if:
-
Done in good faith; and
-
Not detrimental to minor’s interest.
Only when actual prejudice to the minor is pleaded and proved can partition be reopened.
Paras 48–50
Evidence — Fraud — Standard of proof
Fraud must be proved with a degree of certainty higher than ordinary civil disputes.
Suspicion, conjecture or inequitable distribution alone is insufficient.
Paras 44–47, 70
First Appellate Court — Interference with findings of fact
Where findings of the Trial Court are based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the appellate court shall not interfere unless perversity or legal infirmity is demonstrated.
Para 71
FACTS (As Recorded by the Court)
-
The suit properties originally belonged to the common ancestor:
-
Goriparthi Venkanna and his wife Venkamma.
-
-
They had three sons:
-
Goriparthi Srirama Murthy (Defendant No.1)
-
Goriparthi Nageswara Rao (husband of Plaintiff No.1 – deceased)
-
Goriparthi Surya Rao (Defendant No.2)
-
-
Plaintiffs are:
-
Wife and children of late Goriparthi Nageswara Rao.
-
-
Suit O.S. No.12 of 2013 was filed seeking:
-
Declaration;
-
Partition;
-
Declaration that:
-
Registered partition deed dated 27-06-2008,
-
Registered settlement deed dated 27-06-2008, and
-
Registered gift deed dated 25-04-2015
are sham, collusive, fraudulent and not binding.
-
-
-
Trial Court dismissed the suit by judgment dated 11-06-2019.
-
The present appeal under Section 96 CPC was filed challenging the dismissal.
ISSUES FRAMED BY THE APPELLATE COURT
Para 25
-
Whether plaintiffs are entitled to partition of the 1/3rd share of late G. Nageswara Rao?
-
Whether the registered partition deed and settlement deed dated 27-06-2008 are sham, nominal and fraudulent?
ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS
1. Nature of partition under Hindu Law
The Court reiterated that:
-
Partition severs joint family status.
-
Once effected, joint ownership ceases.
-
Partition is ordinarily final and irrevocable.
Paras 30–31
2. When partition can be reopened
Relying extensively on Ratnam Chettiar v. S.M. Kuppuswami Chettiar
(1976) 1 SCC 214, the Court reiterated the settled propositions:
-
Voluntary partition cannot be reopened.
-
Exception exists only when fraud or minor’s prejudice is established.
-
Strict proof is required.
Paras 32–35
3. Meaning and scope of fraud
The Court examined:
-
Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act;
-
Judicial definitions of fraud;
-
Dictionary meaning;
-
Supreme Court precedents including:
-
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath
-
A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P.
-
Nidhi Kaim v. State of M.P.
-
Vishnu Vardhan v. State of U.P.
-
and reiterated:
Fraud must be pleaded with particulars and proved with cogent evidence.
Paras 37–47
4. Mandatory pleading under Order VI Rule 4 CPC
The Court held:
-
Fraud allegations without particulars are legally non-existent.
-
Evidence without pleadings is inadmissible.
-
Mere allegation does not reopen concluded transactions.
Paras 42–45
5. Appreciation of evidence
Registered documents
-
Partition deed dated 27-06-2008 (Ex.A-1)
-
Settlement deed dated 27-06-2008 (Ex.A-2)
were:
-
Executed during lifetime of deceased;
-
Registered;
-
Acted upon;
-
Witnessed;
-
Followed by mutation and revenue entries.
Paras 51–60
Conduct of deceased coparcener
The Court noted:
-
Deceased was highly educated.
-
Government Engineer.
-
Businessman and builder in Hyderabad.
-
Maintained cordial relations with brothers.
-
Never challenged the documents during his lifetime.
Paras 55–65
Revenue records
Pattadar passbooks, adangals and title deeds stood mutated in favour of defendants, attracting statutory presumption under Section 6 of Act 26 of 1971.
Paras 66–67
6. Minor’s interest
The Court held:
-
No pleading or proof of prejudice to minors.
-
No evidence showing unfairness.
-
Hence, ground for reopening unavailable.
Paras 48–50, 70
7. Findings of Trial Court
The High Court found:
-
Trial Court’s findings were well reasoned.
-
No perversity.
-
No misapplication of law.
-
No evidence supporting fraud.
Paras 71–73
FINAL DECISION
Para 74
-
Appeal dismissed.
-
Judgment and decree of the Trial Court confirmed.
-
No costs.
-
All pending applications closed.
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
A concluded partition effected by registered documents cannot be reopened unless fraud or undue influence is strictly pleaded and proved.
-
Mere inequality of shares or subsequent dissatisfaction does not invalidate partition.
-
Fraud must be pleaded with particulars under Order VI Rule 4 CPC and proved by cogent evidence; vague allegations are insufficient.
-
Partition involving minors is binding unless actual prejudice is established.
-
Registered partition and settlement deeds, when acted upon and supported by revenue records, carry strong evidentiary presumption.
-
First appellate court will not interfere with findings of fact unless perversity or legal infirmity is demonstrated.
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE
This judgment is a comprehensive reaffirmation of:
-
Finality of Hindu family partitions
-
Stringent standards for pleading fraud
-
Protection against belated challenges to registered family settlements
-
Judicial caution against reopening long-settled family arrangements
It serves as a leading authority on:
-
Reopening of partition deeds
-
Fraud pleadings under CPC
-
Minor’s interest in family partitions
-
Evidentiary value of registered documents
