Allowed

M Ananda v. Bharathamma

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Jan 2024CRP/1686/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a partition suit, the trial court refused a defendant's application to implead legal heirs of deceased defendants. Since this Court had already allowed his transposition as plaintiff No.2, it held the objection fell away and permitted impleadment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to implead legal representatives of deceased defendant Nos.2 and 5 as defendant Nos.11 to 17; no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT 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: 1686 OF 2023

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order dated 12.04.2023 in I.A.No.124 of 2021 in O.S.No.228 of 2014, on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Palamaner, Chittoor^district.

¶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. Kummargunta Village, Vanamaladinne Post, Punganur Mandal,^Chittoor District.

¶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

K.Nagarathnamma, W/o Late Venkatesu, Age. 62 years, R/o. Payasthanahalli Village, Marendahalli Post, Mulbagal Thaluk, Kolar District, Karnataka State.

¶15

Smt. S.Santhamma, W/o S.Narayanappa, Age. 60 years, R/o. T.Bandlapalli Village, Gonumakulapalli Post, V.Kota Mandal, Chittoor^District.

¶16

M.Gowramma (Died), Age. 83 years, R/o. Dasarapalli Village, Baireddipalli Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶17

M.Rukmanamma, W/o Late M.Kodanda Reddy, Age. 49 years,^R/o. Dasarapalli Village, Baireddipalli Mandal, Chittoor^District.

¶18

M.Harinath, S/o Late Kodanda Reddy, Age. 33 years, R/o. Dasarapalli Village, Baireddipalli Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶19

M.Venu Babu, S/o Late Kodanda Reddy, Age. 29 years, R/o. Dasarapalli Village, Baireddipalli Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶20

10.Smt. V.Shobha @ V.Padmavathi, W/o V.Venkataramana, Age. 29 years, R/o. Madamvaripalli Village, Kagithi Post, Chowdepalli Mandal,^{ChittoorDistrict.}

¶21

...Respondaents/Respondents

¶22

Smt. Jyothi @ Jyothamma, W/o Sreenivasulu @ Seena, Age. 48 years, R/o. Alajineru Village, Vanamaladinne Post, Punganur Mandal,^{ChittoorDistrict.}

¶23

12.Manju @ Manjunath, S/o Late Munirathnappa, Age. 44 years, R/o. Bikkanahalli village, Mannaranayahalli Post, Thyaluru Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District, Karnataka State - 563 138.

¶24

'■'S'

¶25

13.Smt. Rathy @ Rathyamma, W/o Sivaraju, Age. 46 years, R/o.Manchiganipalli Village, Sonnawadi Mandal, Mulbagal Post and Taluk, Kolar District, Karnataka State - 563 131.

¶26

14.Rajakumar, S/o Late Munirathnappa, Age. 42 years, R/o. Bikkanahalli village, Mannaranayahalli Post, Thyaluru Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District, Karnataka State - 563 138.

¶27

...Respondents/Proposed Parties/Legal heirs of the deceased 5*'’ Defendant

¶28

15.Thriveni, W/o Late M.Chengalraya Reddy, Age. 62 years, R/o.Radha Bangalow, Palamaner Town and Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶29

16.M.Bhaskar, S/o Late M.Chengalraya Reddy, Age. 47 years, R/o.Radha Bangalow, Palamaner Town and Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶30

IT.M.Nirmala, D/o Late M.Chengalraya Reddy, Age. 45 years, R/o.Radha Bangalow, Palamaner Town and Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶31

...Respondents/Proposed Parties/Legal heirs of the^{deceased2"'*Defendant} Respondents No.2 to 17 are Not Necessary parties to^{thisCivilRevisionPetition.}

¶32

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶33

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.228 of 2014 on the^{fileoftheCourtoftheSenior} Civil Judge, Palamaner.

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. G JAGADEESWAR

¶35

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶36

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶37

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1686 OF 2023

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

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.

¶40

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 & 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.

¶41

The petitioner had then filed LA.No. 124 of 2021 to bring the proposed legal heirs of the deceased defendant Nos.2 86 5 as defendant Nos. 11 to 17 in the suit. This

¶42

-2-

¶43

RRR, J CRPNo.1686 of 2023

¶44

application was dismissed by the Trial Court on 12.04.2023 on the ground that the petitioner, as a defendant in^the suit, could not have sought impleadment of the Legal Representatives of defendant Nos.2 & 5.

¶45

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶46

The question of whether a defendant can move an application to implead the Legal Representatives^ofthe deceased defendants in the same suit need not be gone^into in the present case, on account of the subsequent developments.

¶47

The petitioner had also sought to transpose himself as a plaintiff by way of LA.No.39 of 2020 which^was dismissed by the Trial Court on 12.04.2023.

¶48

Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner had filed C.R.P.No. 1666 of 2023 before^thisCourt and the same has been allowed by way of a separate^order.

¶49

This Civil Revision Petition has been allowed and the petitioner has been permitted to transpose^himself as plaintiff No.2 in the suit. As such, the objection raised by

¶50

RRR, J CRPNo.1686 of 2023

¶51

-3 -

¶52

the Trial Court does not remain and this Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed, permitting the petitioner^to implead the Legal Representatives of the deceased defendant Nos.2 85 5 as defendant Nos. 11 to 17 in the suit. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶54

closed.

¶55

Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Senior Civil Judge, Palamaner, Chittoor district. 2. One CC to Sri. G Jagadeeswar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies vna

¶60

HIGH COURT DATED:03/01/2024

¶61

ORDER

¶62

CRP.No.1686 of 2023

¶63

ano7^
ar 2 7 MAR 202^1 o<br>C‘ ;,.•
^ Current Section

¶64

ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS

M Ananda v. Bharathamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Ananda v. 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

H Vijaya Sarathi Vs B Sreedhar

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

M.Ananda Vs Smt. Bharathamma