High Court dismissed Civil Revision Petition challenging Trial Court order refusing withdrawal of partition suit. Trial Court found no confusion or delay justifying fresh suit.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 640 OF 2023
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow this Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the orders dated 06/12/2022 passed in LA.No.1381 of 2022 in O.S.No.16 of 2009 by the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.
Between:
..Revision Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.16 of 2009 on the file of the IIAdditional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur pending disposal of the above CivilRevision Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Sri. K JOSEPH
Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 5: Sri. V.R.Reddy Kovuri
Counsel for other Respondents :None Appeared
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI
Civil Revision Petition No.640 of 2023
ORDER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the order dated 06.12.2022 dismissing I.A.No.1381 of 2022 in O.S.No.16 of 2009 on the file of II Additional District Judge's Court, Kadapa at Proddutur, filed under Order XXIII Rule 1 (3) CPC to permit the petitioners/plaintiffs to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file fresh suit against the respondents/defendants in respect of the same property.
(a) The plaintiffs and defendants are the successors of Singanamala Rama Swamy through his 2"d wife Mrs S.Lakshamma. S.Rama Swamy had his 1st wife Mrs.S.Nagamma through whom he had a son by name
2
BSB,J C.R.P.No.640 of 2023
S.Narayana. There was partition among S.Rama Swamy and his children through the 1 St and2nd wife under a registered partition deed dated 01.08.1947. In the partition deed, the properties mentioned in A schedule fell to the share of S.Rama swamy and the children through 2"d wife, whereas properties shown in B schedule fell to the share of S.Narayana. Subsequently, S.Narayana died leaving behind him his three sons namely S.Sankara Narayana, S.Subramanyam and late S.Satyanarayana. Late S.Satyanaraya has two daughters namely S.Subbamma and late S.Narayanamma.
(b) After the death of S.Rama Swamy, the plaintiffs claimed their share in the properties in A schedule of the partition deed, but the plaintiffs did not implead the legal heirs of S.Narayana as parties to the suit and therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties whoare all cosharers.
Fur+her, the plaintiffs found some mistakes in the description of the schedule properties and therefore identification of the suit schedule properties would arise.
BSB,J C.R.P.No.640 of 2023
(d) That apart, some properties shown in the plaint schedule were sold by the defendants and therefore, the purchasers are necessary parties.
(e) The suit is coming up for trial and the affidavit of the 3rd plaintiff as P.W.1 was filed. At this juncture, the plaintiffs found the above requirements. As it takes a lot of time to meet all the requirements of adding parties those who are co-sharers and also purchasers and to get the amendments of the description of the properties made, the petitioners to seek withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit meeting all these requirements.
(a) A detailed written statement and additional written statement were filed that the petitioners and1St respondent colluded and got filed the suit with false allegations. In fact there is no joint family between the plaintiffs and defendants, nor are there any joint family properties. The suit schedule properties are absolute properties of these defendants No.2 to 5, 11 and 12. S.Rama Swamy had two wives. He had a son Narayana through his
4
BSB,.i C.R.P.No.640 of 2023
1st wife and there are three sons through 2nd wife, namely Subbarayudu, Sreeramulu and Lakshmaiah. There was a registered partition deed dated 01.08.1947 bearing document No.3411 of 1947. A schedule properties in the partition fell to the share of S.Rama Swamy and his 2nd wife's son and B schedule properties fell to the share of Narayana and C schedule debts had to be compensated by Rama swamy and the sons through the 2nd wife. Since the partition, they were in separate possession and enjoyment of their shares.
(b) The 1st respondent is a chronic litigant and filed false suit O.S.No.133 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge for partition of the properties Subbarayudu and Sreeramulu for his unlawful gain. While the suit is pending, the 1st respondent blackmailed and finally settled the dispute in Lokadalath on 30.11.2022. An award was passed that the 1St respondent or the petitioners have no right over the suit schedule properties of these respondents. On 04.12.2022, the petitioners and the wife of 1st respondent also executed the agreement of memorandum in favour of these respondents agreeing that they had no right or title or possession over the properties of the respondents. The1St respondent being a chronic litigant, 7 years later, filed the suit
5
BSB,J C.R.P.No.640 of 2023
in O.S.No.16 of 2009. The matter was successfully dragged on for 13 years and harassed the respondents. The petitioners got amended the plaint seven times and again came up with this petition. Apart from that, the petitioners, in collusion with the daughter of the 2' respondent namely Eswaramma, filed another partition suit in O.S.No.28 of 2021 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa. Under all these circumstances, withdrawing the suit seeking liberty for filing fresh suit is nothing but harassment of these respondents.
(c) All the other defence stated in the counter is not necessary for the purpose of the present application and hence, it is not referred here.
6
BSB,J C.R.P.No.640 of 2023
disposal, the petitioners intend to withdraw the suit and file a fresh suit.
"10. In view of the above contentions of both sides and on perusal of the record, it is clear that already suit for partition filed vide O. S. No.132 of 2002 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court and is settled in Lok Adalath on 30.11.2002 itself. Further, admittedly, the another suit vide O. S. No.28/2021 also pending on the file of this
BSB,J C.R.P.No.640 of 2023
court regarding with the suit schedule properties. Further, this suit is filed in the year 2009 since then, admittedly, the plaint is amended for 7 times and finally, the suit riped for trial and affidavit in lieu of chief examination is filed on 19.09.2022 and the case is posted to 12.10.2022 for marking of documents and cross of P. W.1. On the said day, the P. W.1 was absent and at request of counsel, posted to 07.11.2022 for dismissal of the suit if again the P. W.1 absent on the said date, but the petitioners/plaintiffs come forward with this petition on hand on 07.11.2022 for dismissal of the suit if again the P. W.1 absent on the said date, but the petitioners/plaintiffs come forward with this petition on hand on 07.11.2022 and more over the another connected suit in O. S. No.41/2014 also pending. Further, the reasons stated in the petition that some of the suit schedule properties are sell away by the defendant and the purchasers are necessary parties, but no documents filed to prove the same. Further, the legal heirs of deceased Narayana are not shown as parties in the suit, so that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, the petitioners failed to assign any reasons for their inaction in not impleading the L.Rs of deceased Narayana though it/s well known to them that the L.Rs of the deceased Narayana are co-sharers and necessary parties to the suit. The another contention that they found some mistakes in description of the schedule properties.
8
BSB,J C.R.P.No.640 of 2023
So identification of the suit schedule properties is also one of the problems. So identification of the suit schedule properties is also one of the problems. Here also no reasons assigned for committing mistakes in description of the plaint schedule properties and their inaction to correct the same for all these years from 2009. All the above facts and circumstances clearly shows that the petitioners/plaintiffs have no due diligence about their case and proceedings thereon and they have not assigned any of the reasons for their inaction and for delay, and also for suppression of facts about O. S. No.132/2002 and also O. S. No. 28/2021 as well as O. S. No. 41 /2014. Accordingly, this court feels that there will not be any confusion and ambiguity and unnecessary delay if really the petitioners/plaintiffs take all necessary steps in conducting proceedings of this case. Hence, it is not necessary to permit the petitioners to file fresh suit in appropriate court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed."
9
BSB,J C.R.P.No.640 of 2023
illegality or irregularity so as to interfere with the same. As such, there is no merit in the revision.
dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd!- S. SRINIVASA PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER 1. The II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, Kadapa District. 2. One CC to Sri K. Joseph, Advocate [OPUC]
To,
HIGH COURT
DATED: 20/09/2023
ORDER
CRP.No.640 of 2023
3 1 OCT 2023
DISMISSING THE CRP
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow withdrawal of the partition suit with liberty to file a fresh suit.
Whether there exists apparent error or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court under Article 227.
Whether the petitioners demonstrated due diligence in impleading necessary parties and correcting property descriptions.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Singanamala Lakshmi Devi
Singanamala Radha
Singanamala Bala Narayana
Singanamala Siva Narayana
Singanamala Lakshmi Narayana
Singanamala Sreeramulu
B S BHANUMATHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
