Dasari Roop Kiran Kumar, v. Dasari Rambabu
Case brief
What is this about?
This common order addresses an appeal against an interim order of remand. The High Court affirmed the appellate court's decision to permit adding necessary parties (sisters) but modified the remand directions, settling a specific issue on maintainability without non-joinder for the trial court to decide independently.
What did the court decide?
Dismissed the CMA; confirmed the appellate judgment except for the allowance of I.A. No. 20 of 2013; directed the trial court to frame an additional issue on maintainability and consider fresh evidenc
What the court decided
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA
C.M.A.No.672 of 2015 & C.R.P.No.4453 of 2015
COMMON ORDER:
The third defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff is the first respondent. Defendants 1, 2 and 4 are respondents 2 to 4 respectively.
- The first respondent laid the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and to allot one such share to him, as well as the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 respectively. The property in dispute is described in the plaint schedule, as under:
“Guntur District, Tenali sub-district, Chinaravuru village D.No.172/3(near T.S.No.165 in 5th block 7th ward of Tenali Municipality) an extent of 195.0 sq. yards = 163.03 sq.meters of vacant site bounded by East : Bazaar
South : Property of Dasari Rama Mohana Rao West : Property of Vadlamudi Gopala Krishnaiah North : Property of Penumaka Veera Raghavaiah Within these boundaries an extent of 195.0 sq. yards = 163.03 sq. meters of vacant site only.”
- The relationship among the parties is not in dispute. The first respondent, the appellant, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of Sri Dasari Seshaiah. Fourth respondent is the wife of the third respondent. Sri Dasari Seshaiah died on 18.12.1990. Undisputedly, the property mentioned in the plaint schedule, which shall be herein after referred to as ‘the suit house’, was acquired by Sri Dasari Seshaiah during his lifetime.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court acted properly in permitting the addition of necessary parties (sisters) at the appellate stage via I.A. No. 20 of 2013.
Whether the order of remand to the trial court for fresh consideration of the partition suit was legally permissible and justified.
Whether the additional issue regarding non-joinder of necessary parties should be settled and framed for trial.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
APPPELLANT (Third Defendant)
- respondent
FIRST RESPONDENT (First Plaintiff)
- respondent
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Andhra Pradesh HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- CMA/672/2015
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court