Dismissed

V.S.Vidyasagar v. Kolla Venkataramana Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Oct 2022CRP/5774/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Amaravati) dismissed a civil revision petition seeking impleadment of petitioners in an ongoing partition suit. The Court held that impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is not permitted at the final decree stage and noted the petitioners lacked established interest.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition No.5774 of 2010 dismissed; no costs awarded; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

V.S.Vidyasagar Vs Kolla Venkataramana Reddy — Partition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶3

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5774 of 2010

¶4

(Through physical mode)

¶5

V.S.Vidyasagar, S/o Late V.Sreeramulu, Aged about 59 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o D.No.14/123, West Kothapeta, Madanapalle, Chittoor District and another.

¶6

..Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Kolla Venkataramana Reddy, S/o Gummi Reddy, aged about 59 years, Cultivation, R/o Narlapalle, H/o Thettu village, Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Mr.P.V.Vidyasagar Counsel for the respondents : Mr.Mahadeva Kanthrigala

Mr.N.Pramod

ORAL ORDER

Dt:14.10.2022

The order of the trial Court dismissing the application of the

¶13

petitioners filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (for

¶14

short “C.P.C.”) for their impleadment in O.S.No.56 of 2004 as party defendants is under challenge in the present civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

¶16

The plaintiffs preferred the suit for partition of the land admeasuring Ac.30.65 cts., in Sy.No.808 situated in Thettu Revenue Village, Kurabalakota Revenue Mandalam, Madanapalle Sub-District, Chittoor District. The trial Court has passed a detailed order running into 11 pages mentioning that Sy.No.808 along with other survey numbers like 806 and 811 are the subject matter of O.S.No.32 of 1921 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, which was decreed on 24.01.1928 and that final decree was passed on 05.07.1939. As per lot No.3 of Schedule – B, Survey No.808 was allotted to Gangarapu Gopal Reddy and Gangaru Venkat Reddy giving an extent of Ac.20.13 cents each.

¶17

Thereafter, suit for partition was filed by G.T.Ramachandra Reddy, s/o Gangarapu Venkat Reddy vide O.S.No.76 of 1949, wherein Gangarapu Gopal Reddy was also a party. As per the decree passed in the said suit, Ac.10.45 cents of land was given to Ramachandra Reddy and Ac.10.14 cents of land was allotted to Gangarapu Gopal Reddy. Subsequently, O.S.No.2 of 1963 was filed on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chittoor by one of the sisters of G.Ramachandra Reddy. The said suit was decreed on 07.08.1970 allotting 1/4^th share to G.Ramachandra Reddy. The matter was carried to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A.S.No.528 of 1970. Compromise petition vide

¶18

¶19

I.A.No.296 of 1977 was preferred by the parties on 16.04.1977, which was recorded on the same day and final decree was passed.

¶20

Learned trial Court specifically observed that there is no explanation as to how the share of G.Ramachandra Reddy has been given to V.Sreeramulu when the said Sreeramulu does not belong to the family of Ramachandra Reddy or agnates. It is also observed that G.T.Ramachandra Reddy executed different sale deeds Exs.B.1 to B.11 disposing of his entire share of Ac.10.45 cents of land, whereas the father of the petitioners claimed to have got the share which fell to G.T.Ramachandra Reddy. Thus, the trial Court impliedly finds that when G.T.Ramachandra Reddy had no share in the property as he has already executed sale deeds Exs.B.1 to B.11 before 1957, the present petitioners cannot claim right through the said G.T.Ramachandra Reddy.

¶21

Application for impleadment of party in a partition suit can be allowed only when the petitioners had semblance of title over the party and that executable decree cannot be passed in the absence of the petitioners. Learned trial Court has found that the petitioners are not necessary parties to the suit for partition at the stage when preliminary decree has already been passed and the matter is pending before the High Court at the stage of preparation of final decree. It is too late for the petitioners to seek the relief of impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10

¶22

¶23

of C.P.C. Even otherwise, the litigation in respect of the property including Sy.No.808 is going on since 1921 onwards i.e. for more than 100 years.

¶24

It is settled that in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot entertain the petition in a routine manner and that the power should be exercised rarely and sparingly to see complete justice is done between the parties. The petitioners, having waited for decades allowing the preliminary decree to be passed in a partition suit, cannot be allowed to dictate the plaintiff by becoming parties to the suit at this fag end. Even otherwise, there seems to be nothing on record to show their interest in the property. If the petitioners own the property and having possession, it will be better for them to prefer a fresh suit.

¶25

For the aforesaid discussion, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. All pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

¶27

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ

¶28

Ksp

V.S.Vidyasagar v. Kolla Venkataramana Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.S.Vidyasagar v. Kolla Venkataramana Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.Reddy, Vs Sri Naga Shivudu

B.Srinivas Rao, Krishna Dist Vs T.Krishna (Died) and 9 Others

Kandimalla Subba Rao Vs Gangineni Venkateswara Rao (Died)

Audi Suresh Babu Vs Sri R. Srinivasa Rao

B Karunakar Reddy Vs Kiran Kumar

Alapati Ashok Kumar Vs the State of a.P., and Another