Allowed

P Krishna v. P Prakash

Telangana HC3 Sept 2014CRP/1115/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the lower court's dismissal of an application for intervention. Noting that petitioners had filed a certified copy of a 1969 sale deed and other documents without dispute, the court allowed the intervention and directed disposal of the suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 17-2-2014 set aside; application No.505 of 2012 allowed; written statement permitted; suit disposed within six months.

P Krishna Vs P Prakash — Partition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.1115 of 2014

¶2

Date : 3-9-2014

¶3

Between: P. Krishna and others .. Petitioners And P. Prakash and others .. Respondents

¶4

Counsel for petitioners : Sri D. Gnaneswara Naidu Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri J. Ashvini Kumar Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7 : None appeared

¶5

The Court made the following :

¶6

ORDER:

¶7

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 17-2-2014 in I.A.No.505 of 2012 in O.S.No.26 of 2007 on the file of the learned XI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District.

¶8

Respondent No.1 filed the above mentioned suit for partition of the suit schedule property. The petitioners filed I.A.No.505 of 2012 in the said suit under Order I Rule 10 CPC for their impledment. The petitioners specifically pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the said application that their father late P. Gandaiah has purchased agricultural land admeasuring Ac.6-04 guntas out of total extent of Ac.12-08 guntas in Sy.No.258, which forms part of the suit schedule property, for a sale consideration of Rs.2500/under registered sale deed bearing No.761/1969, dated 1712-1969, from defendant No.1 and that possession of the land was delivered to their father. The petitioners have therefore sought to come on record to protect their interests over the said property, included in the suit schedule, by respondent No.1. The lower Court by the order under revision, dismissed the said application on the main ground that no document has been filed in support of the claim of the petitioners that their father has purchased the property in the year 1969.

¶9

In the grounds of the Civil Revision Petition, the

¶10

petitioners have specifically stated that along with the I.A., they have filed a certified copy of sale deed dated 17-121969, a copy of Adangal pahani and the Encumbrance Certificate issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar of Ranga Reddy District.

¶11

At the hearing, Sri J. Ashvini Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff, has fairly not disputed this plea of the petitioners.

¶12

The lower Court ought to have carefully verified the documents available on record instead of dismissing the application filed by the petitioners in a hurry. Inasmuch as the petitioners have raised a specific plea that their father has purchased the property under registered sale deed as far back as 17-12-1969 and a certified copy of the registered sale deed was stated to have been filed along with the I.A., I do not find any justification for the lower Court in dismissing the said application.

¶13

For the above mentioned reasons, the order under revision is set-aside. I.A.No.505 of 2012 is allowed. The petitioners are permitted to file their written statement within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Since the suit is of the year 2007, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶14

Subject to the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

¶15

As a sequel to the disposal of the Civil Revision

¶16

Petition, CRPMP No.1555 of 2014 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶17

________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

¶18

Date : 3-9-2014 AM

P Krishna v. P Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Krishna v. P Prakash

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

M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Vs M/s.Amr Constructionslimited

M/s Emco Limite, Vs Lanco Infratech limited

Raj Vardhani Enterprises Private Limited, Vs -

Sri Goti Venkateswar Rao, Vs Smt. G. Laxmi

Mr.D.S.Rao Vs Mrs.Rahbav Fathima

Giri Namala, Vs Sri. S. Nagaraju