-
by sayum
28 January 2026 6:55 AM
“Fraud must be pleaded with specificity and proved with cogent evidence; mere expressions like ‘sham’ or ‘collusive’ are not enough to invalidate a lawful partition” – In a detailed and precedent-reinforcing ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a first appeal filed by the widow and children of a deceased coparcener challenging a registered partition and settlement deed executed during the lifetime of the deceased. The Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam held that once a partition is lawfully effected, acted upon, and supported by registered documents, it cannot be undone merely on vague allegations of fraud, especially after the death of the coparcener who consented to such division.
The judgment arising out of a suit for partition, declaration, and cancellation of a family partition deed dated 27.06.2008, a settlement deed of the same date, and a gift deed dated 25.04.2015. The appellants (widow and children of late Goriparthi Nageswara Rao) had claimed that these documents were fraudulent and prejudicial to the rights of minor heirs.
However, the Court found that the deceased himself was a signatory to the partition and settlement deeds during his lifetime, and that there was neither any plea nor proof of fraud or undue influence that could legally justify reopening the partition.
“Once There Is a Registered Partition Acted Upon, Burden Lies Heavily On the Challenger to Establish Fraud”
Rejecting the appellants’ plea for reopening the partition, the Court categorically held:
“A partition effected between members of a Hindu Undivided Family by their own volition and with their consent cannot be reopened unless it is shown that the same was obtained by fraud, coercion, misrepresentation or undue influence… The Court should require strict proof of such facts because an act inter vivos cannot be lightly set aside.” [Para 33]
The Bench relied on the celebrated judgment in Ratnam Chettiar v. S.M. Kuppuswami Chettiar, (1976) 1 SCC 214, reiterating that:
“Mere inequality in share or belated dissatisfaction does not justify reopening of a concluded partition unless the plea of fraud is specifically pleaded and proved.”
In this case, the deceased coparcener, G. Nageswara Rao, had received cash consideration of ₹1,00,000 as his agreed share of the family property, which he sought for his independent business. He, along with his brothers, had executed a registered partition deed allocating land to the other brothers and taking cash in lieu of his share in land.
The Court noted that revenue records, pattadar passbooks, mutation entries, and tax receipts corroborated the defendants' possession post-partition, and that no objections had been raised by the deceased during his lifetime.
“Fraud Must Be Particularised Under Order VI Rule 4 CPC”
The Court expressed strong disapproval of the vague and sweeping allegations of fraud made in the suit without supporting particulars or evidence:
“The plaintiffs merely averred the ground of fraud and undue influence but are not able to demonstrate the factum of fraud played either by the 1st defendant’s husband, or against the plaintiffs, within the parameters of the well-settled legal principles.” [Para 70]
Referring to Order VI Rule 4 CPC, the Court observed that any plea of fraud must contain precise material particulars such as:
“Mere use of the words ‘fraudulent’ or ‘sham’ are not sufficient. A general allegation without foundational facts is inadmissible in law.” [Para 44]
The Court also referenced multiple landmark decisions including S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P., to underline that fraud unravels everything, but must be clearly proved—something glaringly missing in the present case.
No Prejudice to Minor Heirs – No Reopening of Partition
One of the key arguments raised by the appellants was that the partition and subsequent deeds prejudiced the interest of minor children. However, the Court decisively rejected this contention, noting:
“Merely stating that minors were affected without any cogent evidence of detriment or fraud is not sufficient… the evidence shows that benefits were conferred on minors post-partition.” [Para 70]
In fact, the minor son (3rd plaintiff) was gifted land by the 2nd defendant via a registered settlement deed, indicating that his interests were not only protected but positively catered to.
Thus, the Court concluded:
“The plaintiffs are not able to bring their case within the ambit of prejudice caused to the minor.”
Registered Documents Have Strong Presumption of Validity
The Court emphasized that registered deeds—whether partition, settlement, or gift—carry strong presumptive value in law:
“The documents Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 show that they were executed by an educated individual (the deceased), signed in the presence of witnesses, registered, and acted upon. There is no rebuttal of the presumption of their validity.” [Para 52]
The Court also noted that mutation entries and revenue records supported the defendants' case and were not challenged or rebutted by the plaintiffs.
No Interference Warranted by First Appellate Court in Well-Reasoned Findings of Trial Court
The Bench upheld the findings of the trial court, noting that the trial court had properly appreciated oral and documentary evidence, including admissions by the plaintiffs' own witnesses.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s principles in Sarju Pershad v. Raja Jwaleshwari Pratap Narain Singh, the Court held:
“In cases involving appreciation of oral evidence, unless there is perversity or significant misreading of evidence, the appellate court should not interfere with the findings of the trial court.” [Para 71]
The Andhra Pradesh High Court thus confirmed the dismissal of the partition suit by the trial court and held:
“We find no infirmity and error in the detailed and well-reasoned findings arrived by the Trial Court about fraud and the finality of partition. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference of this Court in the present appeal.” [Para 73]
Date of Decision: 22 January 2026
