Allowed

Avanaganti Pratap Reddy and 4 others v. Smt.Gavinolla Sreelatha adn 2 others

Telangana HC4 Aug 2020TRCMP/262/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a transfer petition under Section 24 CPC to move a suit from Ranga Reddy to Nalgonda District Court. The court held that Nalgonda held jurisdiction for the majority of properties involved in related partition disputes, ensuring consistency.

What did the court decide?

The suit O.S.No.1861 of 2019 was withdrawn from Ranga Reddy and transferred to Nalgonda for trial.

Avanaganti Pratap Reddy and 4 others Vs Smt.Gavinolla Sreelatha… — Partition | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶6

TR.C.M.P.NO: 262 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

Avanaganti Pratap Reddy, S/o.Late Anantha Reddy, aged 60 years, Occ. Retd.RTC Employee,

¶9

Smt.Avanaganti Sarojana, W/o.A.Pratap Reddy, aged 57 years, Occ. House wife.

¶10

Avanaganti Ashok Reddy, S/o.A.Pratap Reddy, aged 30 years, Occ.Private service,

¶11

(Petitioners 1-3 are residents of H.No.3-154, Nerada Village, Chityala lMandal, Nalgonda Dist. PIN.5081 1 4.)

¶12

Smt.Kolanu Pushpavathi, W/o.K.Dasarath Reddy, Aged 49 years, Occ. House wife R/o.H.No.10-11-3, Venkatapuram (V), Chityala [rlandal, Nalgonda Dist.

¶13

Smt.Kolanu Gayatri, W/o.A.Ashok Reddy, aged 24 years, Occ. House wife R/o.H.No.3-154, Nerada (V), Chityala N/andal, Nalgonda Dist.

¶14

...PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 1, 2 AND 4.6

¶15

AND

¶16

Smt.Gavinolla Sreelatha @ Avanganti Sreelatha, W/o.G.Narender Reddy (D/o.Avanganti Pratap Reddy) Aged 34 years, Occ. Software Engineer, Native of R/o.Plot No.l3,Christian Colony, Hasthinapuram, Rangareddy Dist.^presently residing at 11003 Lochranza, Richmond, TX, 77407, USA, Represented by^her GPA holder Sri Gavinolla Krishna Reddy S/o.Late G.Basi Reddy, aged 60years,Occ.Agriculture R/o.Plot No.13, Road No.2, Christian Colony, Hasthinapuram, Rangareddy Dist.

¶17

....RESPONDENT NO.1/PLAINTIFF

¶18

Smt.Sudhini Anuradha, W/o.S.Ram Reddy, aged 36^years, Occ. House wife, Native of lrvin Village lVadgul Mandal, Rangareddy Dist.presently residing at H, No.2-1 43717,St. No. 5, Nallakunta, Hyderabad-500044.

¶19

Andhra Bank, represented by its Branch [Vlanager, Chityala Branch,^Chityala [rlandal, Nalgonda Dist.

¶20

.RESPONDENT Nos.2&3/DEFENDANTS 3 AND⁷

¶21

Petition Under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to withdraw^the suit in O.S.No.186'l of 2019^pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil^Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar which has no^jurisdiction and transfer the same^to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda which is having^pecuniary and^territorial jurisdiction and where similar suit in respect of same properties is pending in O.S.No.187 of 2019 and both the suits may be tried together by clubbing the sameⁱⁿ the interest of^justice.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated^{in the} affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^{pleasedto stayall} further proceedings in O.S.No.1861 of 2019 on the file of the^{PrincipalSenior Civil} Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar till the disposal of the^{above Transfer} Petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI P. DAMODAR^REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI K. VENKATA^{RAM REDDY}

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI VENKAT^{RAGHU RAMULU}

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

THE HON,BLE DT. ]USTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER Transfer C il Miscellaneous Petition N .262 of 2OL9

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'), is filed by the petitioners/' defendant Nos.1,2 and 4 to 6, requesting to withdraw O.S.No.1861 of 2019 from the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, on the ground of jurisdiction and transfer the same to the file of Senior Civil^judge, at Nalgonda, for trial and disposal along with O.S.No.1B7 of 2019, in accordance with law.

¶30

Heard Sri Palla Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri K.Venkata Ram Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Venkat Raghu Ramulu, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the record. Inspite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No,3.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that except suit schedule'C'property in O.S.No.1861 of 2019 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar i.e, premises bearing Plot No.26 admeasuring 222 sq.yards in Sy.Nos.397 and 398 situated at Pedda Amberpet Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, all other properties in both the suits are situated at Nerada Village, Chityala N4andal, Nalgonda District. Therefore, for better appreciation of the facts of both the cases and to have consistency in the outcome of the decisions, the suit in O.S,No.1861 of 2019 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, is required to b6- tiansferred to the file of Senior Civil Judge, at

¶32

t,lalgonda, where the^{similarsuit in O.S.No.187of 2019is pending} and ultimately^{prayed to allow the transfer civilmiscellaneous} petition as Prayed for.

¶33

On the other hand,^{learned counsel for respondent Nos land} 4) 2 opposed the transfer^{petition and contendedthat in orderto} cause loss to the l't^{respondent/plaintiff,the suit in O'S'No'187 of} 2O2gonthefileofseniorCivilJudge,Nalgonda,isputintoservice and it is a collusive^{suit, filed for partition and separate possession,} excluding the^{property i.e,premises bearing Plot No'26} admeasuring 222^{sq.yards in Sy.Nos.397 and 398 situated at Pedda} Amberpet Village,^{Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga ReddyDistrict'} There are no^{justifiablegrounds to allow the request made by the} petitioners and ultimately^prayed to^{dismiss the transfercivil} miscellaneous Petition.

¶34

In view of the^{above rival contentions,the pointfor} determinant is:

¶35

"Whether the^{suit in O.5,No.7867of 2O79pending} on the file of Principal^{Senior Civil Judge, Ranga} Reddy District/ at^{L.B,Nagar,be withdrawnand} transferred to the file of^{Senior Civil Judge,} Nalgonda, for trial^{and disposal in accordance with} law?"

¶36

E[NI:^{As seenfrom the materialplaced on record, the suit} in o.s.No.1B61 of^{2019 is filed by the 1't respondentherein/plaintiff} before the Principal^{Senior Civil Judge's Court, RangaReddy District} at L.B.Nagar, seeking^{partitionand separatepossession in respect} of suit schedule^{'A', 'B' and 'C' properties and for declarationto} declare the registered^{Gift deeds dated28.07} '2008^vide

¶37

Doct.No.B145/2OOB, Doct.No. Bt44/2OOB, Doct.No.B146/2OOB, Doct. No.10318/2OLB dt.tz.O7 .2OtB, Doct. N o.g7S4/2OLg dt.06.05.2019, Sale Deed vide Doct.No.13777/2019, dt.01.07.2019 and Memorandum of Deposit of Tiile Deed Doct.N o.3755/20t9 dt.28.03.2019 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff therein. Whereas the suit in O.S.No.tB7 of 2019 is filed by one Avanaganti @ Vangala Jayamma/plaintiff against the petitioners 1 and 2 herein/defendants 1 & 2 and one A.Anuradha before the Senior Civil Judge's Court, at Nalgonda, seeking partition and separate possession of suit schedule lands admeasuring Ac.1B_03 gts situated at Nerada Village, Chityala Mandal, Nalgonda District, and allot equal shares among the plaintiff therein and the defendants I and 2 therein.

¶38

The issues and contentions raised in between both the parties to the litigation are similar in both the suits. For better understanding of the facts of case, to have consistency and to arrive at a just conclusion, both the suits are required to be disposed by one Court. It is seen that except the suit schedule 'C, property in O.S.No.1B6t of 2019, all other properties in both the suits are situated at Nerada Village, Chityala Mandal, Ranga Reddy District i.e, within the territorial jurisdiction of Senior Civil Judge,s Court at Nalgonda. Further, the suit schedule 'C, property in O.S.No.1861 of 2OL9 is smaller extent and all other properties in both the suits are larger extents. Furthermore, in the given circumstances of the case the main bone of contention between the parties to the litigation is with regard to partition and separate possession of suit schedule'A'and'B' properties, which are situated

¶39

¶40

within the territorial jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge's Court at Nalgonda, so the senior civil Judge's court at Nalgonda, is the appropriate Court to deal with the subject matter of both the suits. Further, the Senior civil Judge's Court at Nalgonda, would also be convenient to the witnesses.

¶41

B) Accordingly, this Transfer civil Miscellaneous petition is allowed and the suit in o.s,No.1861 of 2019 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, is withdrawn and transferred to the file of Senior civil Judge, at Nalgonda, for trial and disposal in accordance with law. It is left open to the learned Senior civil Judge, at Nalgonda, either to club both the suits or to dispose of them separately. No costs.

¶42

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Transfer cMp, shall stand closed.

¶43

To,

¶44

ASSrsrAto' ^ ffif*

¶45

//rRUE copy// CyV-sEcTtoN oFFICER

¶46

). +i: 8:liJpqt Senior civit Judse, lrngu Reddy District at L.B.Nasar q on; cc i; r.",'itlrl1A:rX,Ht??:i;;";rr., 4. one cc to Sri venkat Cisn;Riin;il,;&il-'r. (opuc) s. one CC to Sri K.Venkat i-iri n"iiv,'i;;;"*t;(opuc) 6. Two CD Cooies Ks IVP

(

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/0812020

ORDER

, ,.'#,t
1 HE s 74
(
oc
2OAUG2(a0
* a

¶52

TR.C.M.P.No.262 of 201 9

¶53

Allowing the Tr.C.M.P Without costs.

Avanaganti Pratap Reddy and 4 others v. Smt.Gavinolla Sreelatha adn 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avanaganti Pratap Reddy and 4 others v. Smt.Gavinolla Sreelatha adn 2 others

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

Kota Ravi Vs Theegutla Laxmi

Regunta Rajaiah Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Mohammed Anwarullah Vs Smt. Razia Begum

P.Madhusudan Rao Vs Smt. Madireddy Sita Mahalaxmi

R.Ravinder Reddy and 2 Others Vs Smt.Krishnaveni and 6 Others

Smt. Konakati Anitha Vs Sri. Gouri Shiva Kumar Reddy