Dismissed

K.N.Ravinder v. K.N.Rajakumar

Telangana HC21 Jul 2011CRP/4358/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition contesting the dismissal of an application to include foreign property in a partition schedule, this court held that under Section 16 CPC, property must be situate in India. Rejecting the request for jurisdiction over USA property, the court dismissed the revision as the order did not call for interference.

What did the court decide?

The application to include the USA property in the plaint schedule was dismissed as the court lacks jurisdiction over extraterritorial assets.

K.N.Ravinder Vs K.N.Rajakumar — Partition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST (21^TH ) DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

Present:

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶5

Civil Revision Petition No.4358 of 2010

Between:

K.N. Ravinder

…Petitioner

And:

K.N. Raja Kumar

… Respondent

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4358 of 2010

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.02.2010 in IA No.3989 of 2010 in OS No.175 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein-defendant under Order XI Rule 14 CPC, to include the house bearing D.No.812, Timberbridge Court, Westmont, Illinois, USA, as one of the items of the joint family properties in the B schedule along with other property mentioned therein i.e., house bearing D.No.10-2204, West Marrepally, Secunderabad, was dismissed.

¶15

2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶16

3. The respondent herein filed a suit for partition of the plaint schedule property i.e., House bearing D.No.10-2-204 situated at West Marredpally, which according to him is a joint family

¶17

property. The petitioner-defendant filed written statement contesting the suit. He filed IA No.3989 of 2008 seeking to include the property situated in USA in the plaint schedule on the ground that the said item is also joint family property and liable for partition. By seeking the said relief, the petitioner is requesting the Court to exercise jurisdiction over the property, which is situated out side jurisdiction of the Court and in fact, out side the limits of the country, as admittedly, the said item of the property sought to be included is situated in USA. 4. The Explanation to Section 16 CPC states that ‘property’ means property situate in India. In the circumstances, as the property sought to be included in the plaint schedule, is admittedly situate out side the border of India, the trial Court has rightly rejected the request. The impugned order dismissing the application filed under Section 151 CPC does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶18

5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶19

___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶20

Date: 21.07.2011 bss

K.N.Ravinder v. K.N.Rajakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.N.Ravinder v. K.N.Rajakumar

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

Mohd. Arshad Ali Khan Vs Smt. Khatiya Begum

Betappa Vs The State of Andhra pradesh

Merneedi Veerraju Vs Agraharapu Venkata Ramanayya

C.Dhanamjaya Naidu Vs The State of A.P.

Gunji Yedukondalu Vs Gunji Krishnaveni

SMt. Mandavilli Santha Kumari Vs Nallamilli Ramakrishna Reddy