Dismissed
V.Suresh, v. a.T.Megharaj
Andhra Pradesh HCCRP/964/2024
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAT^I FRIDAY…
What the court decided
AI extract
COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAT^I FRIDAY…
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 :: AMARAVAT^I
FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 964 OF 2024
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed against the Order passed in I.A.No.671 of 2015 in I.A.No.240 of1998 in O.S.No.36 of 1989, dated 17.04.2023 on the file of court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District
Between:
V. Suresh, S/o late Anantaraj,‘ r/o Paimagam Village, Aragonda Post Thavanampalle Mandal, Chittoor District. ...PETITIONER
AND
' 1
4'
14.Minor.Disouja, aged 15 years.
...RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances 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.36of1989onthefileof Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, pending disposal of the present C.R.P.
Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI. KOTHAPALLI KODANDAPANI Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED
The Court made the following:
APHC010144562024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3206]
FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NQ: 964/2024
Between: V.suresh,
...PETITIONER AND
A T Megharaj and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.KOTHAPALLI KODANDAPANI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
The Court made the following order:
The petitioner had moved an I.A.No.671 of 2015 before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge Chittoor in O.S.No.36 of 1989 contending that he is the legal heir of one Smt. Rajithamma and that she had executed a relinquishment deed dated 01.03.1989 in favour of one Sri. A.T. Megharaj, who had filed O.S.No.36 of 1989. He contended that he was a necessary party as his mother had executed the aforesaid relinquishment deed when he had already turned major and was aged 19 years.
- The said application to implead him as a necessary party was dismissed by the Trial Court by an order dated 17.04.2023.
- Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has movedthepresent Civil Revision Petition contending that the Trial Court could not have dismissed the said application in as much as the TrialCourtshould have waited for the school assistant to produce the certificateofhisageandthatall members of the joint family are necessary parties toasuitforpartition.
- A perusal of the order of the Trial Court would showthatthe averment of the petitioner, that he was the son ofSmt.Rajithammaand Sri Anantaraj, was denied by the respondents in their counter affidavitandno documents had been produced before the Court to demonstratethatheisthe son of Smt. Rajithamma and Sri Anantaraj.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,shallstand
closed.
//TRUE COPY//
To, 1 The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. 2. One CC to Sri Kothapalli Kodandapani Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies
psr
HIGH COURT
DATED:02/08/2024
ORDER
CRP.No.964 of 2024
Oir A}v£j
!
o
li 2 6DtC2D?4
DISMISSING THE CRP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, claiming to be a legal heir who executed a relinquishment deed, should be impleaded as a necessary party in O.S.No.36 of 1989.
Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the impleadment application without awaiting proof of age and relationship.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
V. Suresh
A.T. Megharaj
A.V. Vanaja Kumari
M.V. Kapildev
Minor A.V. Arun Kumar
R Raghunandan Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court