N. Padmamma and Others v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy and Others
Background
A deceased landholder's first wife and daughter sought partition against his son, second wife and another daughter. The lower courts divided other family property but excluded agricultural inam land because occupancy rights had been granted in the son's name after abolition of the inam. The Supreme Court considered whether that grant displaced the other heirs' rights.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and extended the partition decree to the inam land in the same ratio the High Court had determined for the other property. The son's cultivation and possession, without pleaded or proved exclusion of the other heirs, were treated as being on behalf of the family. The grant in his name consequently benefited all the legal heirs rather than making him the sole owner. The Court rejected reliance on Lokraj to exclude co-heirs merely because occupancy rights stood in one heir's name.
Lesson Learnt
In this family, an occupancy grant bearing only the son's name did not extinguish the other heirs' shares. Sole possession or cultivation was insufficient to exclude them; the Court required evidence of a legally effective ouster before treating their inherited rights as lost.