B. ANASUYAMMA (DIED) PER LR AND ANOTHER v. B. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY (DIED) PER LRS AND OTHERS

Non-reportable

2026 INSC 1126 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. ........................ OF 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6930 of 2023)

B. ANASUYAMMA (DIED) PER LR AND ANOTHER ….. Appellants

versus

B. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY (DIED) PER LRS AND OTHERS ….. Respondents

JUDGMENT

SANJAY KUMAR, J

1. Leave granted.

2. Tracing its origin to a family settlement executed as long back as on

19.04.1959, this litigation beseeches closure. However, the judgment

dated 12.12.2022 passed by the Telangana High Court in Appeal Suit No.

372 of 2012, impugned presently, failed to achieve that objective.

3. B.Venkat Reddy was married to Manikyamma. They had three sons

– Sudhakar Reddy, Madhusudhan Reddy and Janardhan Reddy.

B.Venkat Reddy and his eldest son, Sudhakar Reddy, met with untimely

demise in the year 1948, during the Razakar Movement. Anasuyamma, Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by

Sudhakar Reddy’s widow, adopted Venkatraji Reddy on 25.05.1975. babita pandey Date: 2026.10.14 17:48:11 IST Reason:

Manikyamma, Anasuyamma, Madhusudhan Reddy and Janardhan

Reddy entered into a family settlement on 19.04.1959, delineating their

separate shares in the ancestral properties left behind by B.Venkat Reddy.

In terms thereof, Manikyamma was given Acres(Ac.) 53-10 Guntas (Gts.)

of land in Karkalpahad Village. Anasuyamma was given Ac. 40-01 Gts. in

Karkalpahad Village; Ac. 28-38 Gts. in Kadthal Village; Ac. 14-12 Gts. in

Vasudevapuram Village and Ac. 8-11 Gts. in Vampuguda Village. In all,

she was given Ac. 91-22 Gts. Madhusudhan Reddy was allotted Ac. 1-30

Gts. in Karkalpahad Village and Ac. 60-19 Gts. in Vasudevapuram Village.

In all, he got Ac. 62-09 Gts. Janardhan Reddy was given Ac. 50-10 Gts.

in Karkalpahad Village along with Ac. 56-14 Gts. in Vampuguda Village

and Ac. 24-23 Gts. in Kadthal Village. In all, he got Ac. 131-07 Gts.

4. While so, Anasuyamma and her adopted son, Venkatraji Reddy,

filed O.S. No. 555 of 1977 before the learned I Additional Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad, seeking partition of the suit schedules A, B and C

properties. Manikyamma was arrayed as defendant No. 1 in the said suit

while Madhusudhan Reddy and Janardhan Reddy, her sons, were shown

as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. As Madhusudhan Reddy had sold

certain properties, the vendees independently filed O.S. No. 21 of 1977

before the learned Subordinate Judge, Mahabubnagar, for declaration of

title along with a permanent injunction to protect their rights. This suit was

transferred to the file of the learned I Additional Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad, to be tried along with O.S. No. 555 of 1977 and was

renumbered as O.S. No. 263 of 1978. By common judgment dated 2

21.04.1984, the Trial Court decreed O.S. No. 263 of 1978 and partly

decreed O.S. No. 555 of 1977, directing partition of the suit schedules B

and C properties. Insofar as the suit schedule A properties were

concerned, the Trial Court held that the same were covered by the family

settlement dated 19.04.1959 and dismissed the suit in relation thereto.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.04.1984 insofar as it pertained

to part decretal of O.S. No. 555 of 1977, Madhusudhan Reddy filed City

Civil Court Appeal (CCCA) No. 86 of 1984 before the then Andhra Pradesh

High Court at Hyderabad. During the pendency of O.S. No. 555 of 1977,

Janardhan Reddy had died and his son, Venkat Reddy, was brought on

record as his legal representative. His sister, Nirmala, who was not a party

to O.S. No. 555 of 1977, filed CCCA No. 54 of 1989 assailing the judgment

dated 21.04.1984 insofar as it pertained to the said suit.

6. While the aforestated appeals were pending before the High Court,

a compromise was arrived at by and between Anasuyamma along with

her adopted son, Venkatraji Reddy, and Madhusudhan Reddy, the

appellant in CCCA No. 86 of 1984. The terms of the said compromise

were reduced to writing in the document titled ‘Settlement of Dispute’

dated 24.02.1986. Pursuant thereto, Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP)

No. 9728 of 1988 was filed by Madhusudhan Reddy under Order XXIII,

Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to record the settlement dated

24.02.1986 and decree the appeal in terms thereof. This miscellaneous 3

petition was ordered on 27.06.1988 and the compromise, reflected in the

Settlement of Dispute Deed dated 24.02.1986, was recorded.

7. In terms of the said settlement, Anasuyamma and her adopted son,

Venkatraji Reddy, gave up their claim for a 1/3rd share in the suit schedule

B house property at Door No. 3-6-375, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad, and

Madhusudhan Reddy was given the said house property absolutely.

Madhusudhan Reddy, in turn, gave up his claim for a share in the

properties of his mother, Manikyamma, and the same were surrendered

to Anasuyamma and Venkatraji Reddy. Anasuyamma and Venkatraji

Reddy also gave up their claim for a 1/3rd share in the suit schedule C

house property situated at Karkalpahad Village. A sum of ₹2,20,000/- was

paid by Madhusudhan Reddy to Anasuyamma and Venkatraji Reddy.

8. By judgment dated 07.09.1990, the High Court allowed CCCA No.

86 of 1984, in the light of the compromise by Madhusudhan Reddy with

Anasuyamma and Venkatraji Reddy and also the settlement between

Madhusudhan Reddy and Venkat Reddy, the son of Janardhan Reddy.

However, as regards CCCA No. 54 of 1986 filed by Nirmala, the sister of

Venkat Reddy, the High Court dismissed the said appeal leaving it open

to her to work out her rights by way of a separate suit.

9. While matters stood thus, Madhusudhan Reddy executed registered

Gift Deed No. 4257 of 2007 dated 24.04.2007 in favour of Siddhartha

Reddy, the son of Venkat Reddy, that is, the grandson of Janardhan 4

Reddy, gifting him various lands. This Gift Deed pertained to lands in

Survey Nos. 2, 70, 130, 135, 136 and 137 of Karkalpahad Village.

Significantly, allotment of lands to Madhusudhan Reddy under the family

settlement dated 19.04.1959 reflects that the lands gifted by him did not

fall to his share. He was only given Ac. 1-30 Gts. in Survey No. 15 of

Karkalpahad Village and had, therefore, no claim in the lands that found

mention in the gift geed. In fact, the lands that found mention therein were

allotted to Manikyamma and Madhusudan Reddy had given up his claim

in those lands when he compromised his disputes with Anasuyamma and

her adopted son, Venkatraji Reddy, vide the Settlement of Dispute Deed

dated 24.02.1986, which had the imprimatur of the High Court, vide the

judgment dated 07.09.1990 in CCCA No. 86 of 1984.

10. Anasuyamma and her adopted son, Venkatraji Reddy, along with his

by-birth sister, Gunna Malinidevi, thereupon, filed O.S. No. 250 of 2007

before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, for declaration of

their title over the suit schedule lands; to declare Gift Deed No. 4257 of

2007 dated 24.04.2007 as null and void; to effect necessary mutation in

the revenue records; and to permanently injunct the defendants from

interfering with their possession over the suit schedule lands. The suit

schedule lands were Ac. 3-17 Gts. in Survey No. 121/AA, Ac. 0-33 Gts. in

Survey No. 130/A, Ac. 5-33 Gts. in Survey No. 131/2, Ac. 3-34 Gts. in

Survey No. 135/A, Ac. 1-11 Gts. in Survey No. 136/AA, Ac. 0-38 Gts. in 5

Survey No. 137/A and Ac. 2-12 Gts. in Survey No. 2 of Karkalpahad

Village. Pertinent to note, Gunna Malinidevi had purchased an extent of

Ac. 1-22 Gts. in Survey No. 2 of Karkalpahad Village from Venkatraji

Reddy under registered sale deed dated 15.05.1998. The defendants in

the suit were Madhusudhan Reddy, Venkat Reddy and his son,

Siddhartha Reddy. Anasuyamma died during the pendency of the suit.

11. By judgment dated 09.04.2012, the learned Senior Civil Judge,

Mahabubnagar, dismissed the suit. Surprisingly, the learned Judge opined

therein that the compromise decree dated 07.09.1990 in CCCA No. 86 of

1984 had no evidentiary value. Holding so, the learned Judge completely

ignored the compromise by Madhusudhan Reddy with Anasuyamma and

Venkatraji Reddy and proceeded to hold against them.

12. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit, Venkatraji Reddy and

Gunna Malinidevi filed Appeal Suit No. 372 of 2012 before the Telangana

High Court at Hyderabad, which was dismissed by judgment dated

12.12.2022. Surprisingly, the learned Judge of the High Court, having set

out at great length the chronology of events and the arguments advanced

by the learned counsel, failed to draw the correct inferences from the past

history, in terms of the family settlement of 1959 and the compromise of

1986, which had the seal of approval of the High Court, vide the judgment

dated 07.09.1990 in CCCA No. 86 of 1994. Non-application of mind by the

learned Judge is patent from the observation that ‘execution of the Gift 6

Deed dated 24.04.2007 was never disputed’. In saying so, the learned

Judge lost sight of the fact that O.S. No. 250 of 2007 was filed on

21.08.2007 challenging the said gift deed. Compounding her error, the

learned Judge then observed that Manikyamma died during the pendency

of the suit and was not entitled to any share and, therefore, the claim of

Venkatraji Reddy that he was in enjoyment of the property allotted to her

had no merit. This finding was based on the failure of the learned Judge

to note the contents of the family settlement dated 19.04.1959, which was

accepted by Madhusudan Reddy also, and the compromise dated

24.02.1986, whereby Madhusudhan Reddy gave up his claim for a share

in the properties allotted to Manikyamma in the family settlement of 1959

and secured full rights in the house property at Himayatnagar, Hyderabad.

13. Founded on such fundamental errors, the judgments of the High

Court and the Trial Court cannot be sustained. Notably, despite service of

notice, none of the respondents in this appeal chose to appear.

Madhusudhan Reddy and Venkat Reddy are Respondent Nos. 1 and 2,

but as they had expired even during the pendency of the appeal before

the High Court, they are shown as represented by their legal heirs.

Siddhartha Reddy, son of Venkat Reddy, is respondent No. 3, while

Hemalatha, Madhusudhan Reddy’s widow, is respondent No. 4. Vijayata

Devi, the widow of Venkat Reddy, and Rukmini and Sirisha, his daughters,

are respondent Nos. 6 to 8. Third parties to whom Siddhartha Reddy 7

sought to alienate some lands were respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 before

the High Court and they are respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in this appeal.

However, as stated earlier, none of the respondents chose to enter

appearance before this Court to contest this appeal. Significantly, by order

dated 16.05.2023, this Court had directed status quo obtaining as on that

date, with regard to the nature and possession over the lands in dispute,

to be maintained. Despite such an order being passed against them, none

of the respondents chose to come forward to contest the appeal. Their

failure to do so speaks for itself.

14. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed setting aside the judgment and

decree dated 12.12.2022 in AS No. 372 of 2012 and the judgment and

decree dated 09.04.2012 in O.S. No. 250 of 2007. The said suit shall stand

decreed, as prayed for.

There shall be no orders as to costs.

..............................., J SANJAY KUMAR

..............................., J. SANJEEV SACHDEVA October 14, 2026 New Delhi.