AP High Court Upholds Daughters' Share In Ancestral Property, Rejects Brother's Challenge To Their Legitimacy
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the right of six daughters born from a second marriage to claim equal shares in ancestral family property, while dismissing a second appeal filed by their half-brother who had disputed both their legitimacy and entitlement to partition. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 105]Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao was hearing a second appeal against a judgment that had reversed...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the right of six daughters born from a second marriage to claim equal shares in ancestral family property, while dismissing a second appeal filed by their half-brother who had disputed both their legitimacy and entitlement to partition. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 105]
Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao was hearing a second appeal against a judgment that had reversed the trial court's dismissal of a partition suit and granted relief to the plaintiffs.
The Court observed:
“As noticed supra, plaintiff No.1 is having an undivided share of 1/8th share in the plaint schedule properties and even if it is assumed that the said relinquishment deed is proved, he can relinquish only his undivided share only in the plaint schedule property. Moreover, the disputed relinquishment deed was not produced at all by the appellant before the trial Court. For the aforesaid reasons, plaintiff Nos.2 to 7, the defendant and respondent No.2 in the appeal proceedings, who is none other than the daughter of plaintiff No.1 born through his 1st wife, are entitled to equal shares in the plaint schedule property.”
The dispute concerned ancestral properties in Kakinada. The suit was originally filed by a father and his six daughters seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties into eight equal shares. They contended that the daughters were born to the father's second wife, Raghava, and were therefore entitled to equal shares along with their father and half-brother, the defendant.
The defendant resisted the claim, alleging that the daughters were not the children of the father but were born to Raghava, whom he described as the father's concubine. He also relied on an alleged relinquishment deed said to have been executed by the father in his favour.
However, the High Court noted that the father had consistently pleaded and testified that after the death of his first wife, he married Raghava and that the six daughters were born from that marriage. The Court found significant that the defendant had failed to deny the daughters' paternity when served with a legal notice before the suit and had produced no evidence to establish that they were illegitimate children.
Rejecting the defendant's challenge, the Court observed that the father himself had admitted the paternity of the daughters in both the pleadings and evidence. It therefore concluded that the daughters were born to the father through his second wife, Raghava.
The Court further held that the suit properties were ancestral in nature, having been purchased by the grandfather of the parties, who had died intestate. Consequently, the daughters were entitled to equal shares in the ancestral properties along with their father and brother.
On the defendant's reliance upon a relinquishment deed allegedly executed by the father for a consideration of Rs. 80,000, the Court found that the document had never been produced or proved before the trial court. The father had also disputed its execution, claiming it was obtained fraudulently. The Court held that the burden of proving the deed rested on the defendant, which he had failed to discharge.
The Court also declined to entertain a challenge to the share allotted to the father's second wife, who had been impleaded during the appellate proceedings on the basis of a registered Will. It observed that the defendant had never challenged the order bringing her on record and could not raise the issue for the first time during the second appeal.
Finding no substantial question of law, the High Court dismissed the second appeal at the admission stage and affirmed the appellate court's decree granting partition in favour of the plaintiffs.
Case Title: T. Satyanarayana v. Turangi Somaraju (Died) & Others
Case No.: Second Appeal No. 817 of 2012
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 105
Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner: K. L. B. Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent(s): Narasimha Rao Gudiseva