Dismissed

K.Sudarshan Reddy, v. K.Siva Reddy, died per LRs D 14 to D 16

Telangana HC6 Jun 2012CRP/3766/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the revision petition challenging the dismissal of an interlocutory application to implead a proposed defendant. Upholding the trial court, the revision bench held that under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, subsequent purchasers could be taken note of if the suit proceeded to disposal. However, the observation regarding the petitioner's motives was expunged as

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with a consequential expungement of an irrelevant observation in the impugned order.

K.Sudarshan Reddy, Vs K.Siva Reddy, died per LRs D 14 to D 16 — Partition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3766 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 14.07.2011 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad in I.A.No.516 of 2009 in O.S.No.485 of 1994.

¶5

The petitioner/plaintiff, who filed the suit for partition, filed the above Interlocutory Application under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C to implead M/s.Krupa Builders Private Limited as defendant No.20 in the suit on the ground that defendant No.16 and her daughter are trying to convey the suit properties to the proposed the defendant and therefore, it is necessary party to the suit. The Court below, through the impugned order, dismissed the Interlocutory Application. Hence, this revision.

¶6

The impugned order reads as follows:

¶7

“POINT ANSWERED: It is an undisputed fact that the suit was filed for partitioning properties of Late K.Ram Reddy. The proposed party is admittedly not a member of that joint family. The suit started with two defendants, now it has come upto 19 defendants and this petition intends to bring 20^th defendant. The contention that third parties are alienating the properties is a question that is not very much relevant in a suit for partition of joint family properties. The effect of Sec.52 of Transfer of Property Act always governs the alienations. In fact to prevent such innumerable impleadments that provision renders aid to court’s adjudicative process. By his own showing petitioner showed that his interest is not in seeing the case disposed off but gathering every time a new defendant for impleadment. The presence or absence of the proposed respondent makes no difference for adjudicating the issues involved in the suit among the sharers. Therefore, this court finds no justification to implead the proposed party. Therefore, this point is answered against the petitioner.”

¶8

This Court perused the record and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the

¶9

caveator.

¶10

A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the learned trial Judge was of the view that the transfer of the properties during the pendency of the suit will attract Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and therefore, such transactions will be taken note under the said provision and that if the suit filed for partition is disposed of, the equities can be given in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no need to implead any subsequent purchaser. This Court is of the view that the impugned order is in accordance with law and there is nothing to interfere with the same.

¶11

Coming to the second limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner viz., observation that “By his own showing petitioner showed that his interest is not in seeing the case disposed off but gathering every time a new defendant for impleadment”, such observation is irrelevant in a case of this nature and the same is without any basis and therefore, the said observation is expunged.

¶12

The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

_________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶14

Date: 06.06.2012 va

K.Sudarshan Reddy, v. K.Siva Reddy, died per LRs D 14 to D 16

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sudarshan Reddy, v. K.Siva Reddy, died per LRs D 14 to D 16

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

Chinni Venkata Appa Rao Vs P.KRishna Rao

M.Parvathi Vs Smt.M.v.Sreelatha

Voleti Sudha Ramani Vs Voleti Guru Pratap

Smt.Kota Sreedevi Vs Kota Sekhar Reddy

V. Ramana Reddy, Vs v. Rajyalakshmi

E.Sudha Sree , Shiva Kumari Vs K.Srinivas Reddy