Allowed

M.Ananda v. Smt. Bharathamma

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Jan 2024CRP/1666/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against dismissal of an application to transpose the petitioner, defendant No.10 and purchaser of some suit properties, as plaintiff No.2 in a partition suit after alleged abandonment by the plaintiff. The High Court found clear abandonment and held a purchaser of undivided coparcenary interest can seek partition.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court's order dated 12.04.2023 set aside; petitioner permitted to transpose himself as plaintiff No.2 in O.S.No.228 of 2014; no costs.

M.Ananda Vs Smt. Bharathamma — Partition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1666 OF 2023

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 12.04.2023 in I.A.No.39 of 2020 in O.S.No.228 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Palamaner.

¶7

Between;

¶8

M. Ananda, S/o Late M. Ramappa, Age. 57 years, R/o. Dasarapalli Village, Baireddipalli Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶9

...Petitioner/Defendant No. 10

¶10

AND

¶11

Smt. Bharathamma, W/o Venkatesu, D.No 4 -133 Age. 46 years, R/o. District Village, Vanamaladinne Post, Punganur Mandal,^Chittoor

¶12

M. Chinnapapamma (Died), W/o Late Venkatesu, Age. 83 years R/o Dasarapalli Village, Baireddipalli Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶13

M.Chengalraya Reddy (Died), S/o Late Venkatesu, Age. 69 years, R/o Dasarapalli Village, Baireddipalli Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶14

Venkatesu, Age. 62 years, R/o. Payasthanahalli

¶15

Village, Marendahalli Post, Mulbagal Thaluk, Kolar District, Karnataka State.

¶16

S Narayanappa, Age. 60 years, R/o. T.Bandlapalli

¶17

Village, Gonumakulapalli Post, V.Kota Mandal, Chittoor District. ^

¶18

Ma°nSrChTttoo?Siot®®' baireddipalli

¶19

M.Rukmanamma, W/o Late M.Kodanda Reddy, Aqe. 49 vyears, R/o. Dasarapalli Village, Baireddipalli Mandal, Chittoor District

¶20

BaireddipalliM.Harinath, S/oMandal,Late KodandaChittoor DistrictReddy, Age. 33 years R/o Dasaraoalliuasarapalli

¶21

9, M Venu Babu, S/o Late Kodanda Reddy, Age 29 years, R/o. Dasarapalli

¶22

Village, Baireddipalli Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶23

@ V.Padmavathi, W/o V.Venkataramana, Age. 29 years R/o Madamvaripalli Village. Kagithi Post, Chowdepalli Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶24

t K. *

¶25

(Respondent Nos.2 to 10 are not necessary parties to this Civil Revision Petition)

¶26

...Respondents/Respondents

¶27

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶28

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.228 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Palamaner.

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI G. JAGADEESWAR

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶31

The Court made the following Order:

¶32

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶33

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1666 OF 2023

¶34

ORDER;

¶35

Heard Sri V. Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri G. Jagadeeswar, learned counsel for the petitioner. As there is no appearance of the respondents, despite service of notice, this case is being disposed^ofon merits.

¶36

The respondent No.l herein, had filed O.S.No.228 of 2014 before the Learned Vacation Judge, Chittoor (Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor) for division of the suit schedule property into 28 equal shares and for allotment of such shares to various persons. The petitioner herein, who is a purchaser of some of the properties,^listed in schedule B, is arrayed as defendant No. 10 in the suit. In the course of the proceedings in the suit, defendant Nos.l, 2 86 5 are said to have been passed away. However, steps were not taken to implead their Legal Representatives^and bring them on record by the respondent No. 1 / plaintiff.

¶37

The petitioner herein had thereupon filed LA.No.39 of 2020 to transpose of him as plaintiff No.2 i'

¶38

-2-

¶39

RRR, J CRPNo.1666 of 2023

¶40

under Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. Both these applications were dismissed by an order dated 12.04.2023. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of C.R.P.Nos. 1666 and 1686 of 2023.

¶41

The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff after initiating the suit is now hand in glove with the defendants and is seeking ways and means of ensuring that the suit gets dismissed for default for non-prosecution and such dismissal would effectively damage the interests of the petitioner, who is the defendant No. 10 in the suit. It is the case of the petitioner that, as a purchaser of some of the suit properties, he is also^entitled for a share in the suit schedule property and dismissal^of the suit would result in the denial of the rights of^the petitioner to receive his due share of the family property^of the parties. The Trial Court, while considering I.A.No.39^of 2020 for transposing the petitioner as plaintiff No.2^onthe ground that the plaintiff/respondent No.l had abandoned the suit, had held that the plaintiff was attending and conducting the case, hence, no ground was made out.^The

-3-

RRR, J CRP No. 1666 of 2023

¶47

Trial Court also took the view that the petitioner,^who is only a purchaser of the property and was not a shareholder in the property, cannot transpose himself as partyⁱⁿ the suit for partition. The Trial Court had also dismissed l.A.No.124 of 2021 on the ground that a defendant in^the suit cannot implead parties or bring on record the Legal Representatives of the deceased parties in the suit.

¶48

Sri V. Gangaiah Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner^would submit that, the docket orders, which have been placed before this Court, by way of a memo, would go to show^that the Trial Court had recorded, on 20.07.2023, that the plaintiff was called absent and the advocate for the plaintiff had reported no instructions from the plaintiff, due to which notices were sent to the plaintiff through registered post despite which the petitioner was still absent^andthe plaintiff had failed to appear before the Trial Court^since 01.12.2019, when the matter was called up for trial.^The Trial Court, in the same proceedings dated 20.07.2023,^had closed the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and posted the matter for evidence of defendants. \

¶49

-4-

¶50

RRR, J CRP No. 1666 of 2023

¶51

The learned Senior Counsel would contend that these observations/proceedings of the Trial Court would be more than sufficient to demonstrate that there is abandonment of the suit by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff. He would submit that in such circumstances, the dismissal of the applications is not permissible.

¶52

It is surprising that the Trial Court, despite the order of 20.07.2023, which shows clear abandonment of the suit, by the plaintiff, continued to hold that the plaintiff had not abandoned the suit. The Trial Court was in error on this issue and the said finding needs to be rectified. This Court is of the opinion that the order of the Trial Court, dated 20.07.2023 is a clear finding of the Court that^the plaintiff has given up the suit. In such a case, the petitioner is entitled to be transposed as a plaintiff in the^suit.

¶53

The Trial Court had also held that the petitioner. who is a purchaser of the property is not entitled^totakethe place of a plaintiff It is settled law that a purchaser of undivided interest in a coparcenary property is entitled to demand a partition of the property. In such circumstances. ( i

¶54

-5-

¶55

RRR, J CRP No. 1666 of 2023

¶56

It is not clear as to how the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner, as a purchaser, is not entitled to be a plaintiff.

¶57

The trial was wrong on both counts. The order of the Trial Court is set aside and this Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed and the petitioner will be permitted^to transpose himself as plaintiff No.2 in the suit. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶59

closed.

¶60

SDI- A VENUGOPALA RAO 1 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I

¶61

//TRUE COPY//

¶62

SECTION OFFICER

¶63

To, 1. The Senior Civil Judge, Palamaner, Chittoor District,^A.P. 2 One CC to Sri G Jagadeeswar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of^{A.P.atAmaravathi.} 4. Three CD Copies

sree

HIGH COURT

DATED:03/01/2024

ORDER

CRP.No.1666of2023

ALLOWING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS

¶72

¶73

\3>'U0'LV(

M.Ananda v. Smt. Bharathamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ananda v. Smt. Bharathamma

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

G Venkataramana Vs Sri.Shashi Bhushan Kumar

V T Bhaskara Rao Vs Madireddy Pratap

D Munirama Reddy Vs B Vemanarayana

M Ananda Vs Bharathamma

H Vijaya Sarathi Vs B Sreedhar

Smt.P.Rupa Jisina Alias P.Rupa Jessica Vs G.Suresh