Dismissed

Kandakatla Sirisha v. Kandakatla Indira

Telangana HC5 Mar 2013CRP/246/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition challenged the dismissal of an application to implead as necessary parties in final decree proceedings arising from a partition suit decree. The Court held that since the parent's share had not yet been allotted, the petitioners could not resist proceedings at that stage but could approach the parent's property later.

What did the court decide?

CRP dismissed. It is left open to petitioners to proceed against the 3rd respondent after he has been allotted a share in final decree proceedings.

Kandakatla Sirisha Vs Kandakatla Indira — Partition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 246 of 2013 ORDER:

¶2

Heard.

¶3

The petitioners case is that they are the children of R3 through his second wife. R1 is the daughter of R3 though his first wife. The 1^st respondent filed suit O.S.No.30 of 2005 for partition. The said suit has been decreed. I.A.No.12 of 2011 is filed for passing a final decree. Then the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.163 of 2012 in I.A.No.12 of 2011 in O.S.No.30 of 2005 under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead them in I.A.No.12 of 2011. Thus, they want to come on record in final decree proceedings. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir, dismissed the said petition.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have share in the property of their father and that they are the children of the 3^rd respondent through his second wife. It is also argued that even if it is held that the petitioners are not the legitimate children of R3, they are entitled to a share in his property.

¶5

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no proof that the 3^rd respondent gave divorce to his first wife and subsequently married the mother of the petitioners and since there is no satisfactory evidence, the lower Court rejected the application holding that they are not necessary parties. It is also submitted that only to reduce the share of the 1^st respondent, the petitioners want to come on record at the time of final decree proceedings.

¶6

The only point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners are necessary parties to the final decree proceedings in

¶7

I.A.No.12 of 2011 in O.S.No.30 of 2005.

¶8

It is not in dispute that the 1^st respondent is the daughter of 3^rd respondent through his first wife. Once it is not in dispute that the 1^st respondent is the daughter of 3^rd respondent, the 1^st respondent gets a share in the joint family properties as coparcener since she has a share in the joint family properties. The lower Court has rightly decreed the suit holding that she is entitled for 1/6^th share in the suit schedule properties and also 1/4^th share in the properties fell to the share of 3^rd respondent herein i.e. 1^st respondent is entitled for ½ share in the properties belonging to 3^rd respondent herein. Admittedly, the petitioners did not file any application during the pendency of the suit. It is not their case that the suit was decreed ex parte. As seen from the contents of the order, the lower Court has rightly considered the matter. However, the petitioners may have a claim in the self acquired property of 3^rd respondent or a share that may be allotted to him in the partition after final decree proceedings are over. The petitioners cannot resist final decree proceedings at this stage.

¶9

Subject to the observations made supra, the CRP is dismissed. It is left open to the petitioners to proceed against the person or property of 3^rd respondent after he has been allotted a share in the final decree proceedings. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this CRP, shall stand closed.

¶10

_____________________________ JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶11

05^th March, 2013 KSM

Kandakatla Sirisha v. Kandakatla Indira

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandakatla Sirisha v. Kandakatla Indira

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

R. Krishna Murthy Vs Sri T.Chiranjeevulu, I.A.S.

Bochula Nageswara Rao , Bochu Nageswara Rao , Nagu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Y.Lourdes Rajan, Vs Sri J.S.V. Prasad, I.A.S.

B.Jogiramaiah Vs Sri Sombabu, I.A.S

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri B.Visweswara Rao

Gangapuram Malleswari, Vs T.Chiranjeevulu, IAS