Allowed

Smt B. Aneetha Devi , Ameetha Reddy v. K. Sridhar Reddy

Telangana HC7 Mar 2012CMA/645/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against an order appointing the son as receiver in a partition suit between father and son. The court held the suit defective for non-joinder of siblings with an interest in the property and set aside the receiver appointment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order appointing the 2nd respondent as receiver is set aside; appellants directed to implead themselves.

Smt B. Aneetha Devi , Ameetha Reddy Vs K. Sridhar Reddy — Partition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED

¶2

¶3

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO

¶4

CMA Nos.645 of 2011, 701 of 2011 & CMA (sr) No.27812 of 2011 JUDGMENT: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed )

¶5

Al these CMAs are filed against the order dated 29-4-2011 passed in IA No.803 of 2011 in OS No.2 of 2011 by the District Judge, Nizamabad. OS No.2 of 2011 was filed by the 2^nd respondent against the 1^st respondent. The respondents are father and son and the son filed the suit for partition and separate possession against his father. During the pendency of the suit, the 1^st respondent who is defendant in the suit filed by his son 2^nd respondent filed a petition under Order 40, Rule 1 CPC for appointment of a receiver to manage the suit schedule property. The trial Court by the impugned order, appointed the 2^nd respondent herein-plaintiff as receiver subject to deposit of Rs.50,000/- per annum without changing the existing structure of the property in question.

¶6

2. Now, learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners in these appeals strenuously contended that the suit is filed by the 2^nd respondent herein without impleading the sisters and brother and therefore the suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. Learned counsel also contended that the Court below grossly erred in holding that the properties in question are jointly family properties, in the absence of any admission by 1^st respondent to the effect that the subject property is jointly family property, who is the father and defendant in the suit.

¶7

3. Inasmuch as it is the case of the appellants herein in these appeals that they have interest, right and title over the suit schedule properties in their own right, it is essential that they should be impleaded in the suit as their property rights are also involved. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The appellants herein in these appeals to take steps to implead themselves in the suit and on

¶8

such impleadment, the Court below to work out the equities, pending suit, among all the parties depending upon their rights and pass appropriate orders thereon afresh in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to them.

¶9

4. The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.

¶10

_________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ___________________ K.S.Appa Rao,J Dated: 7-3-2012 Nrg.

Smt B. Aneetha Devi , Ameetha Reddy v. K. Sridhar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt B. Aneetha Devi , Ameetha Reddy v. K. Sridhar Reddy

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

N.Kazim Nawaz Jung Alias Ali Pasha Vs The Special Deputy Collector

J. Ram Reddy, Vs Bommaraju Bal Raj

Salam Bin Yousf , Salam Phaelwan Vs The Station House Officer

Smt K. Vinodini Devi , Vinodi Reddy Vs K. Sridhar Reddy

K. Sudhakar Reddy Vs K. Venkata Lakshmi

R.Venkata Ramanayamma, Vs The La Officer Cum Revenue Divisional Officer