Dismissed

Bantu Hanmanth Reddy v. Bantu Maruthi Karan

Telangana HC12 Apr 2013CRP/872/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a partition suit where joint family income is alleged for acquiring schedule property, the High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an appellate order allowing amendment to add subsequently purchased property held exclusively by a party, ruling that ownership must be decided during trial.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed at the stage of admission; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Bantu Hanmanth Reddy Vs Bantu Maruthi Karan — Partition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.872 OF 2013

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in I.A. No.1026 of 2012 in O.S. No.2 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

¶5

2. The suit was one filed for partition of suit schedule property alleging that there is a joint family property between the plaintiff and the defendants. Certain properties were shown in the schedule for partition. The defendants have denied the existence of the joint family or joint family nucleus, but, however, it is a matter to be decided after the trial of the suit. While so, I.A. No.1026 of 2012 was filed to add certain part of the properties said to

¶6

have been purchased by the 2^nd respondent on 22.06.2012 alleging that the said properties were purchased from the joint family income. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that the property was not purchased from the joint family income and in fact it was purchased by the 4^th respondent and that income exclusively belonging to him, but the sale deed was taken in the name of the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, from the material evidence on record, it is quite clear that the fact whether there was a joint family and there was any

¶7

nucleus to acquire the properties has to be decided in the suit. The further question as to whether the schedule property is exclusive property acquired with the income of the 4^th respondent can only be decided during the trial.

¶8

3. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, since the suit is filed for partition and it is the specific allegation that from the joint family nucleus and income, the property was acquired, during pending suit; and unless and until it is decided that the property is self-acquired property of the 2^nd respondent or not, the claim of the petitioner for adding the property in the schedule cannot be denied. Since this is a subsequent event after filing of the suit, the amendment sought for also cannot be faulted. Therefore, there are no merits in the petition.

¶9

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed.

¶10

_______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶11

Date: 12.04.2013 Knl/ vvr

Bantu Hanmanth Reddy v. Bantu Maruthi Karan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bantu Hanmanth Reddy v. Bantu Maruthi Karan

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

Nagula Sarojini, Vs Smt. P. Eshwaramma , Nagula Eshwaramma

M/s. Radhika Colony Residential Welfare Association, Vs Jaspal Singh

Vvss Estates Private Limited, Vs -

A. Prabhavathi Vs Mohd. Walliullah Siddiqui

Manthena Bala Gangadhar Vs Nylam Mutha Goud

Haji Abdul Razack Vs Janab Abdul Gafoor