Dismissed

Pala Somayya v. Smt. Chellanki Baby Sarojini

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Dec 2021CRP/6227/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order rejecting an application to implead a third party in a pending partition suit. Upholding the trial Court's findings, the High Court held that a prior partition on 1962 extinguished the petitioner's rights and found no overlap between the scheduled properties in the rival suits.

What did the court decide?

Order dismissed with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed.

Pala Somayya Vs Smt. Chellanki Baby Sarojini — Partition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

C.R.P.No.6227 of 2018

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Respondents 1 to 3 had filed O.S.No.60 of 2010 before the II Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, for partition of certain suit schedule properties against respondents 4 to 9. This suit was filed on the ground that the properties, which are in the name of the father of respondents 1 to 3, are actually joint family properties, which require partition among respondents 1 to 3 and some other respondents in the revision petition. While the said suit was pending, the petitioner herein, who is third party to the suit, had filed I.A.No.659 of 2018 to implead himself in the suit while the final decree proceedings were going on. The case of the petitioner was that he had filed O.S.No.65 of 2010 before the District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, wherein the properties mentioned in the schedule to O.S.No.60 of 2010 were also the subject matter of his suit bearing O.S.No.65 of 2010 and any decision in O.S.No.60 of 2010 would affect his suit and rights in O.S.No.65 of 2010. This application was dismissed by the trial Court by an order dated 06.09.2018.

¶5

The trial Court after going through the rival claims and pleadings had come to the conclusion that the properties described in the schedule attached to O.S.No.60 of 2010 have no bearing on the properties mentioned in the schedule attached to O.S.No.65 of 2010. The trial Court also held that even though the petitioner is related to respondents 1 to 3, the petitioner would not have any claim over these properties on the ground that there was a partition between the petitioner herein and the father of respondents 1 to 3 and other members of the family on

¶6

RRR,J C.R.P.No.6227 of 2018

¶7

¶8

29.12.1962, after which the petitioner had no right or claim over the properties in the schedule attached to O.S.No.60 of 2010 as these properties fell to the share of the father of respondents 1 to 3 under the said partition dated 29.12.1962.

¶9

Heard Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yallabandi Ramatirtha, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

¶10

I have gone through the pleadings as well as the findings given by the trial Court and also the revision petition filed before this Court. I have not been shown any material to differ with the views of the trial Court as far as the description of the properties in the respective schedules are concerned. Further, nothing has been shown to me to differ from the view of the trial Court relating to the effect of the partition dated 29.12.1962.

¶11

In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order under revision. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶12

_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶13

2^nd December, 2021 Js.

¶14

RRR,J 3 C.R.P.No.6227 of 2018

¶15

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶16

C.R.P.No.6227 of 2018

¶17

2^nd December, 2021

¶18

Js.

Pala Somayya v. Smt. Chellanki Baby Sarojini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pala Somayya v. Smt. Chellanki Baby Sarojini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yedururu Dhananjaya Achary Vs Yedururu Ravindra Achari

Kothuri Chandra Sekhar Vs M/S Sri Vigneshwara Finance

Shaik Allabakash Vs Shaik Anwar Basha

R Saraswathi Vs v Venkatrao

Smt. Meka Sushma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gudala Chiranjivi, Vs Nuli Lakshmi Narayana Family Private Trust