Allowed

Smt.Bhimavarapu Kameswari v. Smt.Bhimavarapu Venkata Lakshmi

Telangana HC12 Dec 2014CRP/992/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge court allowed civil revision petition, holding that proposed parties with an alleged interest in property via a will are necessary parties. It set aside the trial court's order dismissing an application to implead them absent the will.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; order dated 05.09.2013 by Senior Civil Judge set aside.

Smt.Bhimavarapu Kameswari Vs Smt.Bhimavarapu Venkata Lakshmi — Partition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.992 OF 2014

¶2

O R D E R :

¶3

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 05.09.2013, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem in IA.No.117 of 2012 in OS.No.199 of 2005.

¶4

Heard Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs 2 to 4 and Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants 1 to 5.

¶5

The brief facts of the revision petition are as follows;

¶6

The father of the second plaintiff by name Sri Undi Anjaneyulu filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 13.05.2005 in favour of the 1^st defendant. Pending suit he died and the petitioners who are the daughters have been brought on record as his legal representatives. According to them, they and some other individuals who are the children of late Koduri Thirupathamma are the legal heirs of late Undi Anjaneyulu by virtue of a ‘will’ executed by him during his life time. Their version is that since respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the issues of late Koduri Thirupathamma, they have to be brought on record as legal representatives of his father and they are necessary parties in the suit.

¶7

The trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the ‘will’ was not produced before the Court.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that even in the absence of ‘will’ also the proposed parties are necessary parties in the suit and therefore the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition.

¶9

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the petitioner asserted that the proposed parties are necessary parties by virtue of the alleged ‘will’, the ‘will’ has necessarily to be produced before the trial Court and as no ‘will’ has been produced, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition.

¶10

For the purpose of ascertaining whether a party is a necessary party in the suit, the Court has to see that the party has any right or interest in the subject matter of the suit and whether the suit can be disposed of effectively and completely without the presence of the proposed parties.

¶11

In the instant case even in the absence of the ‘will’ the proposed parties have a right in the property and therefore it cannot be said that they are not necessary parties in the suit. This Court is of the view that without the presence of the proposed parties, there cannot be any effective and complete adjudication of the rights of the parties in relation to the properties involved in the suit. The trial court had committed error in dismissing the IA.No.117 of 2012 in OS.No.199 of 2005, which order is liable to be set aside.

¶12

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 05.09.2013, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem in IA.No.117 of 2012 in OS.No.199 of 2005. No costs.

¶13

As a sequel thereto miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this revision petition, shall stand closed.

¶14

R. KANTHA RAO, J

¶15

12.12.2014 t k

Smt.Bhimavarapu Kameswari v. Smt.Bhimavarapu Venkata Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Bhimavarapu Kameswari v. Smt.Bhimavarapu Venkata Lakshmi

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

G. Yesudas, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Y.a.Ready, Vs a.P.State Road Transport Corporation

D. Sanjeeva Rao Vs The Executive Engineer Rajendranagar Circle -Vi

P.V.S. Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, Vs A.P. State Road Transport Corporation

Yeleti Venkata Raju Vs Karri Vijay Kumar Reddy

Surangani Subbarao, Vs Land Acquisition officer (Rdo)