Dismissed

Bandi Nallappa Reddy, v. Bandi Kamalamma

Telangana HC5 Nov 2009CRP/6540/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition challenged an order closing suit proceedings and directing payment of stamps after a commissioner divided disputed property in a partition suit. The court found no illegality in the lot distribution as the petitioner raised no objections during the trial. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

Bandi Nallappa Reddy, Vs Bandi Kamalamma — Partition | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Civil Revision Petition No.6540 of 2004

¶3

(Dated : 05-11-2009)

¶4

Between:

¶5

Bandi Nallappa Reddy S/o Bakki Reddy R/o Pachikapallam village, Vedurkuppa Mandal, Chittoor

¶6

….Petitioner

¶7

A n d

¶8

Bandi Kamalamma W/o late Krishna Reddy and others

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶11

Civil Revision Petition No.6540 of 2004

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 01.12.2004 passed in I.A.No.331 of 1992 in O.S.No.123 of 1978 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge closed the petition filed under Order XVI Rule 13 CPC with a direction to the petitioner to file valuation certificate and deposit N.J stamps for drafting final decree.

¶14

2. The petitioner herein is the 1^st respondent in I.A.No.331 of 1992 in O.S.No.123 of 1978. Respondents 1 to 5 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.123 of 1978. They filed a suit for partition. A preliminary decree came to be passed. Subsequently, final decree proceedings have been initiated. A commissioner was appointed to make division of the suit schedule property. The commissioner inspected the suit schedule property and submitted his report. The Commissioner suggested division of the properties in two ways. One is North to South’ and another is East to West’. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the Commissioner’s report, which reads as hereunder: -

¶15

“ I submit that with the help of Mandal Surveyor we have identified the petition schedule mentioned property situated in Dry S.No.221/4 of Pachikapallam village accounts to an extent of Ac.0.44 cents within the following boundaries:

¶16

East : Viratpuram Road West : Rice Mill and abutting the vacant site of A.Venkata Reddy South : Balvadi school, the house of Gunti Reddy, Muni Reddy and Krishnaiah were situated North : Chittoor to Puttur main Road

¶17

The above schedule is tallied with the petition schedule.

¶18

I submit that I am herewith enclosing the rough sketch with detailed measurements (in links) with boundaries and letters of A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I., and the same may be read as part and parcel of this report.

¶19

A’ to B’ the measurement is 303 links on the Northern side, C’ to D’ the measurement is 328 links on the Southern side A’ to C’ the measurement is 136 links on the Western side, B’ to D’ the measurement is 141 links on the Eastern side.

¶20

If it is divided into two equal shares by dividing in between A’ and B’ (Northern side) it is E’ and F’. The Western part, i.e., AEFC on the North West ¾ is covered with Rice Mill, dwelling houses, shops and foundations by various persons shown in the rough sketch and EBDF part not occupied by any one except one Kamalamma on the North East shown in the Rough sketch. So, if any one gets on the Western part it is not convenient. On the other hand, if the total extent is divided into two shares from Eastern side in between B’ and D’ as Northern Portion and Southern portion, i.e., Northern portion is

¶21

ABHC’ and Southern portion is GHDC’.

¶22

Northern portion measures as follows: A’ to B’ 303 links B’ to H’ 73 links H’ to G’ 303 links G’ to A’ 68 links

¶23

Southern portion measures as follows: G’ to H’ 303 links, H’ to D’ 68 links, D’ to C’ 328 links C’ to G’ 68 links

¶24

The above mentioned divisions were clearly shown in the rough sketch which is filed along with this report may kindly be read as part and parcel of this report.

¶25

I submit that as per the directions of this Hon’ble Court, I have divided the entire petition schedule extent of Ac.0.44 cents into two shares on both ways as mentioned supra. The Mandal Surveyor has also submitted his report to the total survey No.221/4 extent 7.39 hectors and the red pencil marked portion is disputed extent of Ac.0.44 cents and the same may be read as part and parcel of this report.

¶26

I submit that I am returning the warrant of Commissioner after duly executed and I am returning the warrant with report and rough sketch and list of enclosures”.

¶27

3. It appears neither party filed objections to the Commissioner’s report. The learned Senior Civil Judge prepared the lots. One lot has been shown as “EBDF” and another lot has been shown as “AEFC”. The 1^st plaintiff took the lot containing `EBDF’ portion and accordingly, the learned Senior Civil Judge

¶28

closed the petition with a direction to the petitioners to file valuation certificate and also deposit N.J stamps for drafting final decree, by order dated 01.12.2004.

¶29

4. For better understanding of the rival contentions of the parties, I deem it appropriate to reproduce the order dated 01.12.2004 passed in I.A.No.331 of 1992 in O.S.No.123 of 1978, which reads as hereunder: -

¶30

“ The petitioner B.Kamalamma present and lots were casted, in the presence of Sri K.Siva Kumar, Advocate for petitioner and Sri B.Jasekhar Reddy, Advocate for respondent present. The 1^st petitioner Bandi Kamalamma took the lots of “EBFD” portion as shown in the Advocate/Commissioner plan, dt.17.11.2004 which was filed in Court and 1^st petitioner Bankdi Kamalamma is allotted “EBDF” portion as noted in Commissioner plan filed in Court on 17.11.2004.

¶31

The lots were casted in respect of the mango garden as shown in Commissioner plan, dt.28.10.1999 and the petitioner B.Kamalamma took the lots of “B” portion in the presence of Sri K.S.K., Advocate for the petitioner and Sri B.Jayasekhar Reddy for K.C.S.R., Advocate for respondent. Hence, “B” marked portion of mango garden is allotted to Bandi Kamalamma. In the result, the final decree is passed as noted above. The petition is closed with a direction to the petitioner to file valuation certificate and deposit N.J stamps for drafting Final Decree”.

¶32

5. The said order is assailed in this revision by the 1^st respondent in I.A.No.331 of 1992.

¶33

6. An interim order came to be passed on 18.8.2009. Respondents 1 to 4 entered appearance and filed C.R.P.M.P.No.7107 of 2009 with a prayer to

¶34

vacate the interim order dated 18.8.2009 passed in C.R.P.M.P.No.16755 of 2004.

¶35

7. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the C.R.P itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶36

8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶37

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Senior Civil Judge proposed the lots without taking into consideration the report submitted by the Commissioner, and therefore, allotting “EBFD” portion to the plaintiffs causes much prejudice to the petitioner since a part of the left over portion is in occupation of the third parties. Learned counsel took me through the Commissioner’s report and also rough sketch of the suit schedule property.

¶38

10. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 submits that the petitioner did not choose to file any objections to the Commissioner’s report nor raised any objections when the trial Court casted the lots, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise objections to the lots casted by the trial Court at this stage.

¶39

11. Indisputably, no objections have been raised to the Commissioner’s report by either party. So also, the petitioner herein did not raise any objections when the lots were casted. The petitioner having not raised any objections at the time of casting of lots cannot be permitted to contend that the lot left over comprises unauthorized occupations and thereby, it caused much

¶40

prejudice to him. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in casting of lots by the learned Senior Civil Judge. It appears that the counsel appearing for both the parties were present when the lots were casted. In that view of the matter, this revision is devoid of merits.

¶41

12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

_____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J

¶43

Dt. 5-11-2009 RAR

¶44

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶45

Civil Revision Petition No.6540 of 2004

¶46

DATED : 05-11-2009

Bandi Nallappa Reddy, v. Bandi Kamalamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandi Nallappa Reddy, v. Bandi Kamalamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Balaji Singh Vs M. Fajulum Bee

K.Yadagiri Vs Mohd Faheemuddin

Jarugumalli Brahmaiah, ( Foster), Vs Jarugumalli Yesu

M. R. Muniratnam, Vs Sri Mukesh M. Kumar Meena, District Collector

A.Venkataswamy Yadav Vs Busireddy Satyareddy

Gubbala Venkateswarlu Vs Addagaila Babulu