Allowed

Pirati Sivaiah v. Late Somarouthu Nageswari

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Sept 2023CRP/1199/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a civil revision petition under Article 227. Set aside the trial court's order declining to club two suits (O.S.No.16/2020 and O.S.No.20/2019) involving the same property and subject matter, directing them to be tried together to avoid conflicting decisions and repeated evidence recording.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; impugned order declining to club O.S.No.16 of 2020 with O.S.No.20 of 2019 is set aside; I.A.No.189 of 2021 allowed.

Pirati Sivaiah Vs Late Somarouthu Nageswari — Specific Performance | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶2

Civil Revision Petition No.1199 of 2022

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This revision petition is filed by the plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 21.04.2022, disposing of I.A.No.189 of 2021 in O.S.No.16 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, filed under Section 151 CPC to club O.S.No.16 of 2020 with O.S.No.20 of 2019 on the file of the same Court.

¶5

Heard Sri Paladugu Ganesh , learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs and M/s. Pilix Law Firm , learned counsel appearing for respondent/defendant No.4.

¶6

O.S.No.16 of 2020 was initially filed as O.S.No.52 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, and later it was transferred to the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, and re-numbered as O.S.No.16 of 2020. This suit is filed by the legal heirs of late Pirati Venkata Subbaiah, viz., Pirati Sivaiah, Pirati Saraswathi, Nagam Balamma, Tummala Subba Rao, Tummala Srinivasa Rao and Kuppala Nagarajakumari. The suit is filed for specific performance of an unregistered agreement of sale, dated 28.06.1979. As per the case of the plaintiffs therein, the suit

¶7

¶8

BSB, J C.R.P.No.1199 of 2022

¶9

schedule property is originally owned by Somarouthu Ramachandraiah having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 01.02.1950, and later, he executed the said agreement of sale in favour of late Pirati Venkata Subbaiah and put the vendee in possession of the property by receiving the total sale consideration. The plaintiffs further pleaded that a registered sale deed, dated 06.07.1998, in favour of defendant No.4 is brought into existence collusively and that the defendant No.4 is no other than the son of the brother-in-law of Somarouthu Ramachandraiah and thus, the sale deed is sham, collusive and nominal. Defendants 1 to 3 are the legal representatives of Somarouthu Ramachandraiah.

¶10

Defendant No.4 in O.S.No.16 of 2020 filed suit in O.S.No.20 of 2019 against all the plaintiffs in O.S.No.16 of 2020 seeking declaration that the registered relinquishment deed, dated 28.07.2008, executed by the 1^st defendant and others in favour of Tummala Naga Malleswari is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs by virtue of the registered sale deed, dated 06.07.1998, executed by Somarouthu Ramachandraiah. The defendants 4 to 6 in O.S.No.20 of 2019 are the husband and children of Tummala Naga Malleswari. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.16 of 2020 filed I.A.No.189 of 2021 praying to take common evidence in O.S.No.16 of 2020 by clubbing the said suit with

¶11

¶12

BSB, J C.R.P.No.1199 of 2022

¶13

O.S.No.20 of 2019 to avoid conflicting judgments and for the convenience of both the parties and to avoid delay. The petitioners stated that O.S.No.16 of 2020 is a comprehensive suit.

¶14

The 1^st respondent/1^st defendant died. The respondents 2 & 3/defendants 2 & 3 remained ex parte in the suit and they did not contest the petition. The respondent No.4/defendant No.4 (who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.20 of 2019) reported no counter.

¶15

After hearing both parties and perusing the record, the trial Court, though found that the subject matter and the property in both the suits are one and the same, as the respondents 1 to 3 in O.S.No.16 of 2020 are not the parties in O.S.No.20 of 2019, declined to club the suits and directed simultaneous recording of the evidence in both the suits.

¶16

Having been aggrieved by the order declining to grant the relief, though the observations are to the effect that the subject matter and the property in both the suits are one and the same, this revision petition was filed.

¶17

It is obvious that the validity of the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.4 in O.S.No.16 of 2020 is the subject matter in this suit. In O.S.No.20 of 2019, the very same sale deed is the basis for defendant No.4 in O.S.No.16 of 2020 who is the plaintiff in

¶18

¶19

BSB, J C.R.P.No.1199 of 2022

¶20

O.S.No.20 of 2019 to seek the relief of declaration that the relinquishment deed executed by the 1^st defendant and others as null and void. It is not only the right of the 1^st defendant and others to execute the relinquishment deed which is to be considered, but the validity of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.20 of 2019 also falls for consideration in this suit. As such, the very same question is involved in both the suits. Therefore, it is essential to have a common trial in both the suits to avoid recording the same evidence twice and conflicting decisions. As such, the trial Court has erroneously observed that both the suits need to be tried by recording evidence simultaneously just because the respondents 1 to 3 herein are not parties in O.S.No.20 of 2019. In fact, the plaintiff in O.S.No.20 of 2019 has to join with the respondents 1 to 3 in executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.16 of 2020, if the plaintiffs succeed in the suit. As such, the order impugned in the revision needs to be interfered with.

¶21

On the previous occasion, it was represented that the revision petition has become infructuous as the connected suit in O.S.No.20 of 2019 was dismissed for default. However, pending hearing of this revision petition, since admittedly, it was restored to file, the said obstacle was also removed. As such, it is a case fit to allow the revision.

¶22

¶23

BSB, J C.R.P.No.1199 of 2022

¶24

In the result, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 21.04.2022, passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, in I.A.No.189 of 2021 in O.S.No.16 of 2020. Consequently, I.A.No.189 of 2021 is allowed, as prayed for.

¶25

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶27

___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J

¶28

04-09-2023 RAR

Pirati Sivaiah v. Late Somarouthu Nageswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pirati Sivaiah v. Late Somarouthu Nageswari

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

Badur Subbarama Reddy Vs Veerapelle Eswara Redddy

Kakula Bhavana, Vs Chitikina Ramakrishna

Norvic Shipping Asia Pte.Ltd Vs Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited(Rinl)

Thota Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Vs Thota Veera Venkata Padma Kumari

B.Haritha Vs N.E.Nagendra

Kona Satyanarayana Vs konka Srinivasa Rao