Allowed

Vodnala Rayamallu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Mar 2021CRLP/1941/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A partition claim concerning land conveyed under a Sanad was held to disclose no cause of action and to be barred by Section 36 of the 1954 Act. The court treated the allotment as individual, not joint-family property, allowed the revision, set aside the impugned order and rejected the plaint.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; plaint rejected. No order as to costs.

Vodnala Rayamallu Vs The State of Telangana — Partition | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA}

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY.THE^{SEVENTEENTH DAY OF I/ARCH}

¶5

TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEA.RAJASHEKERREDDY}

¶8

CIVIL REVISI ON PETITION NO:^{1941 OF 2021}

¶9

Petition filed under Article 227^{of lhe constitutionof lndia, aggrieved by the orderdated} 27 t1012021 in l.A. No.^{741t2018in o.s.No.139 0f 2018, on the file of the vlll Additional} District Judge, Rangareddy^{District at L.B. Nagar.}

¶10

Between:

¶11

R.sriramkumar and another,^{S/o late A. Ramaswamy,Age 46 yrs,OccBusiness'} N o 6-3-2521^{41 1} lA.^{Erramanzil, Hyderabad.}

¶12

R.Shravan Kumar, S/o late A.^{Ramaswamy,Age. 46 yrs, Occ Business'} Rt o 6-3-2521^{41 1} lA, Erramanzil,^Hyderabad.

¶13

...PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS^{No.17& 18}

¶14

AND

¶15

1 Anil Lakhwani and 23 others, S/o^{Vishandas Kanwarmal Lakhwani, Age44 yrs, Occ'} Business, R/o Pakki^{Kholi, Sindhi Camp,Akola, AkolaDiskict, Maharashtra State -} 444 001.

¶16

....Respondent/Plaintiff

¶17

Vishandas Kanwarmal^{Lakhwani, S/o Late Kanwarmal Lakhwani,Age'75 yrs Occ} Business, R/o PakkpKholi,^{Sindhi Camp, Akola, Akola District'['4aharashtraSlate-} 444 001

¶18

lndira Bai Lakhwani,^{W/o Vishandas Kanwarmal Lakhwani. Age 64 yrs Occ'} Business. R/o Pakki Kholi,^{Sindhi Camp, Akola, Akola. District, t\ilaharashtraState -} 444 AO

¶19

Raj Kumar Lakhwani,^{S/o Vishandas Kanwarmal Lakhwani, Age.49 yrs, Occ'} Business, R/o Pakki^{Kholi, S ndhi Camp, Akola, Akola District, MaharashtraState-} 444 001

¶20

Rajesh Kumar Lakhwani,^{S/o Vishandas Kanwarmal Lakhwani,Age40 yrs, Occ} Buiiness, R/o Pakki Kholi,^{Sindhi Camp, Akola, Akola District,N4aharastraState -} 444 001

¶21

Meena Bai^{Kundnani, W/o Thawardas Kundnani, Age.51 yrs, Occ. Housewife,R/o} Pakki Kholi, Sindhi Camp,^{Akola, Akola District, Maharastra State-444 001'}

¶22

Sunitha Khairajmal^{Kundnani, W/o Khairajmal Kundnani, Age. 47 yrs, Occ'} Housewife, Ryo^{pafli Kholi, Sindhi Camp, Akola, Akola District, MaharastraState-} 444 001

¶23

Babitha Bai Poppli, Wo^{Sunll Kumar, Age.38 yrs, Occ. Housewife, R/o Pakki Kholi,} Sindhi Camp, Akola,^{Akola District, Maharastra State-444001}

¶24

Smt Chandiika^{Bhai Lakhwani, S/o late Sri. PhathumlKanwarmallakhwani, Age 83} yrs, Occ Business, The Respondents No.g to^{14 are R/o.Pakki Kholi. Sindhi Camp,} Akola, Akola District,^{Maharastra State} '^{444 oO1}

¶25

Rameshlal Phathumal Lakhwani,^{S/o late Sri. Phathumal Kanwarmal Lakhwani, Age.} 55 yrs, Occ. Business,

¶26

Suresh Kumar Lakhwani,^{S/o late Sri. Phathumal Lakhwani,Age.50 yrs,Occ} Business, Kanwarmal

¶27

Smt. Sulochana Kishanchapd^{Ba.ia, S/o late Sri. Phathumal KanwarmalLakhwani,} Age. 62^yrs, Occ. Business,

¶28

Smt. Kaushalya^{BaiMohanlal Baiaj,, S/o lateSri. Phathumal KanwarmalLakhwani,} Age 60^yrs, Occ. Business,

¶29

Smt. Sangeetha Suresh^{Kumar Motwani, S/o late Sri. Phathumal Kanwarmal} Lakhwani, Age. 44^yrs, Occ.^{Business, The RespondentsNo.gto 14 are Ryo.Pakki} Kholi. Sindhi Camp, Akola,^{Akola District, MaharastraState- 444 001}

¶30

Venkat Ramana, S/o Late^{A. Ramaswamy, Age. 46 yrs,Occ. BusinessFl/o 6-3-} 2521 41 1 I A, Erramanzil, Hyderabad.

¶31

'16. R. Krishna Kumar, S/o Late A. Ramaswamy, Age. 56 yrs,Occ. Business R/o 6-32521 41 1 I A, Erramanzil, Hyderabad.

¶32

R. Rajarathnam, S/o Late A.^{Ramaswamy, Age.54 yrs,Occ. BusinessR/o6-3-} 2521 41 1 I A, Erramanzil, Hyderabad

¶33

'18. R. Geetha Srinivasan, W/o Late R. Srinivasan, Age. 49 yrs,R/o 6-3-252141114' Erramanzil, Hyderabad

¶34

R.S. Karthik, S/o Late^{R. Srinivasan, Age. 28 yrs, Rlo6-3-2521411lA, Erramanzil'} Hyderabad

¶35

R.S. lr4onish, S/o Late R. Srinivasan,^Age.22 Yrs,Rlo^{6-3-2521411/A, Erramanzil,} Hvderabad

¶36

zt(e. Oev, W/o Late A. Ramaswamy,^{Age. 76 yrs,Occ. Housewife, Rlo6-3-25214111A,} E "a nta ezr{. Hyde.abad

¶37

Pranahi Wio V. N4adhu, Aqe.52^{yrs, Occ. Housewife, Rlo 6-3-2521411lA} Erramanzil, Hyderabad

¶38

R. Jyothi, W/o Jaisurya,^Age. 37^{yrs, Occ. Housewife Rlo6-3-25214111A, Erramanzil,} Hyderabad

¶39

Puranmal Agarwal, S/o^{late Mohrilal, Age. 58 yrs, Occ.Business,RJo6-3-252141114'} Erramanzil, Hyderabad^{(RespondentsNo.2to 24 are profarma and not necessary} parties to this petition)

¶40

.RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS^{NO.1 TO 16} &^{19 TO 25}

¶41

IA NO: 1 0F 2021

¶42

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleasedto stay all further} proceedings in O.S.No. 13912018 on the file of the Vlll Additional District^Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar.

¶43

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶44

Between:

¶45

Anil Lakhwani and 23 others, Slo^{Vishandas Kanwarmal Lakhwanl, Age.44 yrs, Occ} Business, R/o Pakki Kholi, Sindhi Camp,Akola,^{Akola District, Maharashtra State -} 444 001

¶46

Vishandas Kanwarmal Lakhwani, S/o^{Late Kanwarmal Lakhwani,Age.75 yrs, Occ.} Business, R/o PakkpKholi, Sindhi Camp,^{Akola, Akola District,l\4aharashtraState -} 444 001

¶47

.,Jjlfi " .J[ J,ill [;SJ S,iXl? t',[ilX?'Ji":,h"Xffi ll i,tlffi^{JI]' ft}

¶48

444 00",,? """''''

¶49

. E3i i::H,JxkE}fil^{*:: :lll3ils:ffi :xi#:'i-slts?li}:fi ,flx ljl ;P,. ";"".} 444 001

¶50

' E3i::! 444 001^{I: H,T 53[ll'fli:!: JJ;iS:'f; [?H1'ft**:u',il'n: ;i: JJ:' 3:t} 444 001

¶51

'^yffili.?3i 444 001^{:8ll1l?t;Hil llSH:ftfi $1i3i1,$l:i"lX'if ;Y"f,ligl ""} ' i1[{#j"[i[:-lllir:l'y;;^{Hffi ll?:[:ffi :'ilfi .t'*;;;;i'lraS'la'ie .} 444 oo1 ^^6^{'rR vrs occ Housewife'R/oPakki Kholi'}

¶52

. ffi ffi "fxJ "yiffi Bi5,,lffi A',?"3f, JE f&i 3:i,,. ne rs/ R e s po n d e nts

¶53

And amy,^{Age 46 Yrs'Occ} Bustness, 1 R ^, -..E.t^t11A Sriramkumar^{and F rramanz't. Hyderabad'another'} ,^{S/o late} : A^{RamaswanrY'A Ramasw} Age.⁴⁶ Yrs,^{Occ Business} 2 n lii intrurn o i-)uz,o"^Kumar' 'A, E'ramanzrl^{S/olat€Hvderabad}

¶54

'^{ResPondents/Petitioners}

¶55

3 smt^chalorn" ?l'i:ini::;"^i:""ii'i,il,iii:Yx'^fil:?flii'"1lHJ;^t:"-:' vrs occ Business '"" "ti;;,;; a,;-re +l+ 0!r .1.._^, Kanwarmar Lahhwanr. Age. AXotr.^{A,,olu District Manata-'"i} i)" L," sri.^pharhumal

¶56

1 Rameshlal^PhathumalLaK

¶57

Rameshlal^PhathumalLaK

¶58

" ss utt' occ Business'

¶59

s /o l irrEate rr! rr!^{SriPhathumal r rre!"'".-Lakhwani'Age50 yrs'occb}

¶60

irrEate rr! rr!^{r rre!"'".-rre!"'".-}

¶61

5 Suresh^{Kumar Lakhwanl'b} A Business, smt. Sulochana^{KanwarmalKishancnapdBaja' S/o late Sri Phathumal Kanwarmal Lakhwant'}

¶62

" ;;; oi vts' occ u"'n"liir, Ba1a.l,,^{S/o late sri Phathumal Kanwarmal Lakhwani'}

¶63

z si',t. KaushalYa^{Bai ['4oha} Aoe 60 VrS,^{oco.Business,} mar Motwani,^{S/o late Sri. phathumalKanWarmal}

¶64

a. S;,t.^{Sanseetha Suresh Kumarw:]Y:'llr;';:H;i"ni.} r'lo.s^{to 14 arc R/o Pakki} Lakhwani,^{Age 44 yrs' ucc Business' TheRespond-en} Kholi. sindhi^{curnp,nr(oru"liiJr"iiitiiitt' 11663i35113-state- 444001}

¶65

o venkat Ramana^{slo r-utJ'i?i'i'-u"**"'yng" 46 yrs'occ Business FJo 6-3-}

¶66

l^ a;?llJl;llili"6:ilffof;i,u.,.r,^{Ase s6 yrs,occBusiness R/o 6-3-} ,l ati:i":r;:il3?;^lljJi"'e";swamvAse 54 vrs occ Business Rio 6-3-

¶67

. rr TZ;" :,:;E:ii'T;5,'[YlTi?"$^{srinivas a n Ase4e vrs' Fro6'3 - 252 t 4 t1 t A'} t*i3T,X?il,-l{i;tXTL srinivasan' Ase 28 vrs' Rto 6'3-252t4t1lA'^Erramanztr'

¶68

rg ta. HvderabadR.S.^{tvtonisn, S/o Late R srinivasan' Age 22yrs'Rlo6-3'2521411/A' Erramanzil'} rsKp. HvderabadOevi,^{W/o Late A Ramaswamy'Age 76 yrs'Occ' Housewife' Rlo 6'3-252141114'} Erramanzil,^HYderabad

¶69

claim for grant of Sanad allotment undcr the provisions of 1954

¶70

Act. Ilis claim r.vas consiclered and allottccl larrtd to an r:xtent ol Ac.64.10 gts. in Sy.Nos.3i7,329,1130, 332, ll33 ot Ptrpptrlgudar vrll:rgc. R:rjcndranagar rrandal, Ranga l?crld.r, [)rstltct. (in shorl, ''sLil :,i irIclrrlc ltroltt'r-lr'l lt-r uar Ol Slrniril (lr)i lintr irl rlrrii.rl I7 (l.l l(rir3

¶71

'l h i' I' r rr n t i ll' l rr rr l l)Ltiititci;rn1 nos.l tl i'.rr, :,irilr ilL'iitlrits oi \rislltrttllLs J\atrirrlirlri l,rrl-ri<ir tLitj (.,rr111,,1'1 )tlll lrn(i i])Lis lht't irrr.'^jorntlr cntitiL:d to r''jirittt^1,'] Sl-rirlt ril ilrr':iLl!i s(:lr('altllfl propert,y for the reason the Sanad .,as .lllol-le(l t(' eltler son as I(:r:-La of HiI-rdu Undivirir:d I'-anrily. It hits^{r:orrti. t.rrrI (:t'ot'<l t} ltat^lhrtr suit schedule property u,:rs sold^b-v-' the^{l)herlhttntarl lr.anu,armal} [,ak]rri-at-ri (eld<:r son) thror-tgh his^G PA^]rolcit t'^I irlt:^rcgistcrecl Docrrrnrnt No.763/ I^tJ(r8. ti.rlccl 20 06 1!t(rE

¶72

Srrir OS \o.i.-lti^,rl -l(jlE rlr:; i ',l I,r "r'ir rir rrrt(l S('i)1t it1l i)OSS(ljsigll 11 1/.S^, :iitttrt^61'titi i.,itrilrttil^l i-1si,6tl6.ir:lli irl r ill l,^{rrrr-rirlll SlttrlL:i} ''^{r( ilii:( tli ii'rit 'l}

¶73

the .voungcr son Vishrr:rdas Kanu'arrnal l-i:lkhs anr is D 1 (since deceased), his rrvi 1-e is D-2, their sons D-3, D-4, D-5 ar-rcl daughters D 6 & D 7. Tlte Plaintilf as one of the sons olD-1 and D-2 has filed the suit. Defendants B to 13 are the u,ife and children of Phathumal Kanwarmal Lakhwani (elder son) Delendants 1 I to 25 ale the successors-in-title of A. Rama Sq,amv and I(.Ramamurthy who had purchased the suit schcdr-r1c property lrorn the (elder son) thru his GPA holdt:r

¶74

'l'hc rrbolc IA f ilcrl br deiendarrts l7 :rnd i B. r,rndcr' ()rcier VIl, Rtrle 1 1 (r-.r ) &. (ci) ol' Codc ol Cir,'il l)roccciure , 1908. to rt'^jc'crt the plaint on llrt' grorrrrri tl-ra1 it docs not clisclose carusc: ol':u^rion in the suit and the sr-rrt is barred bv lalv ol limitation and not maintainable in vrer.r, of the bar cor-rtained in Section 36 ol 1954 Act, r/r'v.Section 6 of General Clauses Act, 7977, was dismissed, aggrieved thereby, present revision is fi1ed.

¶75

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶76

learncd counsel for thc respondents.

¶77

¶78

O7, Lcrrrnccl coLtnscl lirr- thc petitiottcrs^{(ciclirttllirrt} s^{1 7 trnci1 8)}

¶79

i!Ir1i rr(I('(I; i7 llrirl tlrc ilttrcl iLllottt cl Ltt-tiit:r Sttniici rrlLs gt irlllt'r.1^1o tire elder son Phathumal llanu'armal Li.tki-rwani eittcl ti'tc cLain't non, being macle after 50 1'ears t1-iat t1-ie €:rant was in the nature of Karta of Hindu Undivided Family (LIUP) IS nothing but vexatious litigation; iii that Sanad document is unambiguously clear that it was an individual grant and e/en otherlvise ar-ry clairns or displrtes arising therefrom nr11 have to bc u'orked out Lrrr<1r,r I 954 Act. rvhich the legal heirs o1' r oLu-tgt:r son thilcd to do s( ): irri ilrirL r:-r<'r:r-rLion ol' tltc: saic tlcccl 1.lr'thc liriri' son Ilrrtt his (l PA hoiclur in the vear 19tr8 itsell is r.rotic c to irll stakc I'roidcrs incltrding the I'rcirs of thc -r,ounger so1l, the salc cieeci berng a public cloc um ent; iu) that thc rclief sor-rght in thc suit rs in the nature of declaration .rs to u,hether the Sanad allotment rvas a grant as Karta of HUF or it is an individual allotment, u,ithout seeking the relief of cleclaration and withor-rt there being any

¶80

enforceable right in the suit schedule propert!'. the suit for

¶81

¶82

partition and separate possession of share in the suit schedule

¶83

propertv is impermissible and not maintainable; u/ that Section 36 ol l95zl Act excllrcles the^{jurisclictior-r} of the civil Court and as

¶84

sr.rcl-r t}-re suiL is not mailrtainable e\ien on that coLrnt; ur/ that the rclrcl lor p.lrtitiorl is sorreht ers therc is no limitation for set'kittq such a rclief as suit rs lrot lnaintainnbie ttn<lcr thc prot'isiotts ol l<154 Act ancl hopclcssl.r' barred ur-rcicr lriu' of lirttitrrtiort: r'r) that the pl:rir-rt rs cleverlv clraftccl [u,isting t]re lacts u'hic]r is^cle:rr ablrse of the legal process, rvhich the Court belo'"v failed^to identify in its enquiry in the IA filed Order VII, Rule 11 CPC^and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶85

Lean-red cout-tsel lor the respondents, on the other^hand, contended:- i/ that ur-rder Rtrle 19 ol 1955 Rules, the^qltcstiot-t wtether thc thrnilr is .ioint^()r sepetralc shall bi:^{(lct('rl]llll('(lr'\ itll} rcferencre 1o statlls oi- t hc sartd familr" as oll^I 'l-08^{I ()47 zrndcacll} rncmber o1' sttci-t lirrnily shall be tlccmecl to^be ioir-rt

¶86

n otu'ith stand ing tlrc litct tl'rat such nrcrnber^{becanlesepurrar.ed}

¶87

¶88

after said date and as sucl-r, both sons of Smt.Mummal Devi are

¶89

legal heirs ol the Sanad allotment and entitlecl to respectirre sharcs as per Hindr-r Lau' and hence the legal heirs of voLlnger soll filecl the suit for ltnrtition of strit schedulc propcrt., to thc cxtcnt ol' tlteir Hall' shtLre; ii/ rhat the lancl trllottccl to rhc elclcr solr irs l\trrtir ol l-i LJfr. tlrr: Llls ol' tl-rc cicir:r- :i()n calul()t t:ltrinr il as rrrr r'.rclrrsive l)ropc.rt.\ ol Phathumal Kanu'armal Lal<hu ani; rir/ that the bar contained in Section 36 of the 1954 Act shall appl_v only when a civil proceeding is filed chalienging tl-re Sanad allotment, as there is no challenge to the Sanad, Section 36 of 1954 Act is inapplicable to the facts of the case; iul that the Cour'1 bc.lo.,r' riehtl.v disrnissed the iA on rhe n.asoning that the lar-rcl :rilottcd lrncler Sanacl to tl-re elder son in his incliviciLral t'trltirtitr or irs hiu'ttr o{ }lUF- u.ill l-rat,e to bc gont: inlo irr trial after irclclr.rr:inq t.vicle trce bl both the parties ancl as issr:es r:risecl beinq

¶90

rnirctl rlucstions ol'larr arncl lerct needs to clr:r:irleci nt ihe time ol'

¶91

trial. mairrtained the sr,rit

¶92

09, Having heard learned counsel for the pa-rties, the point that arise for consideration is:^-

¶93

Wtt:lll::r tlrc plaitt rJi.sc/oses caust, o.l'aclion atul is nol ltarrt'cl ltrl l nitatiott attd nol rntLirttctirtable in uietLt of the bar conlaitecl uttcler Sectiort 36 of tlte Displaced. Persons (Cornpen.sation and Rehabilitatiotl) Act, 1954, R/tu.Section 6 of General Clauses Act and; whether the impugned order is sustainable in the facts and circamstances of tite cose.

¶94

The facts stated are self explanator-v. The allotment of land (suit scheclule propert,v) r-rnder Sanad nas issued in accordancc rrith tl-re elaborate pnrccdule laid rrnder the 195.1 Acr. l'l're ltt5-1 Act artd thc l(155 Rulls farntcd thercutndt-.r e ncaltsulllt' comprehcnsive sell contained codc rvith respect to etllotmcnt of Iand to llcftrgecs undcr the prol'isiorrs thcrcin ancl plor,iclc fbr linality to sllch allotnle1lt. Sections 22,23, 24,25 ancl 27 ol the

¶95

195.1 Act reads as tlnder :-

¶96

22. Appeals to the Settlement Commissioner,

¶97

lL)^{Subjectto the prouisions of sub- section(2),} ang^{person aggrieued} by an order of the Settlement Officer or a managing officer under this Act may, within thirty dags from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to th.e Settlement Commissioner in such form and manner as mag be prescribed: Prouided that the Settlement Commissioner maA entertain

¶98

¶99

the ctppeal ctfter tlrc expiry of tlrc said peiod of tllitlA daAs, tf he is satisfied that the appellant LUos preuented by sufficient cause .from filing^{the appealin time.}

¶100

12)^{No appeal shall lie} from^{an order of the Settlement OfJicerunder} section 5 if the difference betuLeen the amount of public dues as determined by the Settlement Offi.cer and that as admitted by the applicant is less than one thousand ntpees or such other amount not exceeding one thousand rupees as mag be spectfied bg the Central Gouernment in this behalf, bg notification in the Official Gazette. (!) The Settlement Commissioner may, after heaing the appeaL, confirm, uary or reuerse the order appealed from and pass such order in relation thereto as he deems fit.

¶101

23. Appeals to the Chief Settlement Commissioner.

¶102

fu)^{Sttbjectto the prouisions of sub- section (2), ang person aggieuedby} an order of the Settlement Cornmissioner or the Aclditional Settlement Cornnissioner or an Assista nt Set.tlemerLt Cornmissioner or a mcutaging corporaliort under this Act mag, LUithtn thirtA days frotn tle date of the order. prefer an appeal to tlrc ChieJ' Settlernent Cotrunissioner irt such Jbnn^{cotd manner as ntaA be prescibecl: Prouicled that the Chief} Settlenre,rt Conrmissiorrer tneA etttertabt tLe a1-tpeal after tlrc ex:1.ttry o.f tlre .srricl peiocl of thirtll deAs. f'he is satislicd tln! tlle r4tpellcu tt tttcts preue:rrterl b11 sufJicient cctusr: lionr Jilirtg the appecrl irt tinte. l!)^{No ctppeal sltc l lie} Ji-ont^{atty order passerLhcL1:pec ut-tclersection} 22.

¶103

(3) The Chief Settlement Commissioner maq, after heaing the appeal, confirm, uary or reuerse the order appeoled from and pass such order irt relation thereto as he deems fit.

¶104

24. Pouer oJ retision of the Chief Settlement Conunissioner.

¶105

[1)^{The Chief SettlementCommissionermaA at anA time call} for^tLLe record of any proceeding under this Act in uhich a Settlement Officer, an Assistant Settlement Officer an Assistant Settlement Commissioner, a managing officer or a managing corporotion has passed an order for the purpose of satisfging himself as to the legalitg or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as he thinks fit. !)^{Without prejudice to the generality of the} foregoing^{pouer undersub'} section (1), if the Chief Settlement Commissioner is satisrfiecl thQt ana order for pollment of cornpensation to a displcrced person or any lectse or allotnott granted to such a person has been obtcrined by lfin bu ''/'--""-

¶106

¶107

means of fraud, fatse representation or concealment of^{ang material} fact,^{then notuithstanding angthingcontainedin this Act, tleChief} Settlement Commissioner maA pass an order directing that no compensation shall be paid to such a person or reducing the amount of compensation to be paid to him, or as the case may be, cancelling the lease or allotment granted to him; and if it is found that a displaced person has been paid compensation uhich is not pagable to him, or which is tn excess of the amount payable to him, such amount or excess, as the case may be, tnaA, on a ceftificate issued bg the ChieJ Settlernertt Cornrnissloner, be recouered in the same manner a s an arrear o.f land reuenue.

¶108

l3)^{No order whiclt preidicialla aJfectsan-r/} .l)(,/son^{shall Ite} ltctssec) uncler tltis seclion tttit]tottt giuttg hhn o reasonable opportunitrl oJ'ltitg heard.

¶109

l4)^{Any persotl ctggieued b11 ang order rnade} under sub, sectiott^(2). may, u,ithit thirty days of the date of the order, make ant c4:pliccttion .for the reLtisiort of tlte order in suclt.fonn end rnanner as mell be presaibed to the Central Gouen1.n1et7t and the Central Gouentntertt nzarT pras.s such order thereon as it thinks /rt.

¶110

Section 25 - Review and. amendment of orders

¶111

(1) Ang persorl aggrieued by an order of the Settlement Officer under section 5, from uhich no appeal is allowed under section 22, mag, ttithin thirtg days from the date of the order, make an application in such form and manner as maA be prescibed, to the Settlement Officer for^{reuieut of his orderand the decision of the SettlementOffi.cer on such} application shall, subject to the prouisions of section 24 and section 33, be final.

¶112

(2) Cleical or arithmetical mistakes in any order passed bA an off.cer or authority under this Act or etrors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission moA, at anA time, be corrected bg such officer or authoity or the successor-in-office of such officer or authoity.

¶113

Section 27 - Finalitg of orders

¶114

Saue as othenuise e-rpressly prouided in this Act, euery order rna.de bg ang officer or outlloitA urtder this Act. ir-Lclu.ditgl ct managirtg corporcttiort. slrull be f nal ond shall not be called in question in an g courl bll u.'ct lJ o_f an. appeal or reuision or in cutg original sttil. rLpplication or execu tiotT proceed itq.

¶115

¶116

11, The statlltorv scheme envisaged r-rncler tlte abovc

¶117

proi'isirrrrs rrri.tl<e it cleur that ailotment ol lancl r..rrrclcr tl-rc 195-] ,\c1 ctrn onlr ltr: challt:ngr..<1 irr ilre nrocle . tir-rrc lirrc ancl rlctliorl l)r('scrii)cd^{llrcrcin. Se'r:tion 36 of the I !t5'i 4., rcirclsthr-rs:-}

¶118

Section 36^- Bar oJ^{jurisdiction.'-Sa} ue as othen.t,ise e.rpresslg prouided i'L this Act, no ciuil court shall haue juttsdiction to entertain cLnA suit or proceeding irt respect of any matter tulticl't tlrc Central Gouemment or onA offi.cer or authoitg appointed under this Act is empou.tered by or under this Act to determine, and no injunction shall be granted by ang court or other authoitg in respect of ang action taken or to be taken in pursuance of ang pou.ter confened bg or under this Act.

¶119

Under Section 22 any person aggricved by' order ol the

¶120

Settlement Officer or Managing Officer, in ti.ris case Managing Officer. appeal lies to the Settlement Comrnissioner ri'l'ro after he;iring the appeal rra-1 conlirrn, /al-' or rc/crse thr: order appc'alecl. Uncler Section 23 from rhe orclcr ol Settlcrrcnt Cor-rr nrissionc'r' seconcl appeal lies to^(,'hiel Scttlcntent Cornnrissioner u ho is vcslt-d u ith same po\'crs as uncier Sc'ctiotr 22. l-trrcler Section 2-i. thc Chief Settlernent Comrnissioner aiso has got the revisional porver. Challenge to allotment c.rn bc made

¶121

beforal\g Chief Settlement Commissioner in rc\rision under this

¶122

¶123

Section to can<:el thc allotment obtained bv flattrl. [a]st' |eprescntation or concealntent of material facts. l.lo$ cr,cr. doctrinc of pr-inciples oi natural justrcc is included at'rd it is necessar\ lirr thr: Chrel Settlement Corrmissioner to :rflord opportlrnitv of bcir-rg hcard to the erffected person. Uncler sub Section 4 thereof against the order passecl by Chief Settlernent Commissioner, revision lies to the Central Government. Section 25 provides for revieu, of the order passed by the Settlement Oflicer under Section 5 where no further appeal lies under Scction '22 or lor correctiolt of clerical or irrithmetical mist:rkes in illl\ orrier passccl b.r arr officer or ar-rthoritl r-tncler the 1c)5.1 Act. St'r'l ior- -17 srtr':rlis r,i lrn:rlitr ctl- or'<lt'rs pirsst:rl l),, rrlv rtfl'ii,.t or .luthorit.' r:ncler thc Ac't savc as <ltherrr isc provicle d in thc Acr sl-rall bc final ancl cilnnot be c:rlled in 11L-rcstior-r in :rn.1 Cour-l it.r rva"r' of an appe:rl or revision or suit. As remedies are 1;rovrded under ti-re schemc of the 1954 Act, civil Courts jurisdiction is

¶124

barred. However if the authorities under the 1954 Act, act

¶125

\vithout jurisdiction, then the bar rvoulci not be attracted, but in

¶126

the case on hand, such is not the case of the plaintiff and he has

¶127

no grievarce as to the correctness or otherrvise of tl-re allotment

¶128

of Sanad in favour of Phathumal Karwarmal Lakhr.l,ani the elder son on r.r,hatsoever grounds, except for seel<ing^partitioll.

¶129

Scction 36 l:ars thc^{jurriscliction} o{'civil Coirt t in^{respt.'ct oI} il Il\ llriltlcrs u hich thc Atrthorities utrdcr the Act itrr: ctlpou c'recl io tlctcrmirtc arlci provi(ic fot' er tinte ltotttlci rcsollltioll of'ttrrr^sLtcl-t isslrcs r-rpon issuancc of Saurad. There is no challe nge^t o^the Sar.rad document date<l 17-O4-1968 bv the^{plairrtilf ar.rd irrs} farrill, members 'uvho claim to be the heirs of the ,r.'ounger^son

¶130

The Sanad document dated 17-04-1968 reads as^follou's:-

¶131

"SANAD

¶132

Whereas Ltq the n rttili<:atitttt oJ'the^{(iouemrnt:rrlrt.l Ittcl titt t.lte i\4irtistru} ol llt lrcLlttlittLli<rn No.UIIL'llb).15 i, dcttttd 25't'^{MLty.-l !)55is-srrc'r1ttttcicr.(t''cliott} i ) ol lltt Disltlttct d Pct'sorts lC)^{)ttu)etrsotion} urul^{Rt:lnbr[ilttlrcrrr/ .{r:11()-5'l} '⁽⁴¹ t)l lt.t.;.t) llrt,rtirtrt.Jlcr re,[crrerl to rt.s lltc.srriri.4ctl. llu'()r'riittil^{(;,)i]('rr,/rr.:7ii lr(1s} ,11,1t1r'..,1 llr,r t'iti|iicc' l),1)l^t1ll rllst|ib,'ri tti l/lL' Sr lir ilrti, lrt illr';^5lrrr.rr1 litt tt^ttlfit i^rt. l't^rL'ci l.)^(ts lll('^{srtirl ['tttltr.'r!g)}

¶133

¶134

AN I) WHEREAS lhe sakl propertA maA be transJbred to the said Ph.ath.um.cLl, S/ o.Kctntuannal of Huderctbad for^{the purpose oJ the} compensation paAable to him under the soid Act.

¶135

THE PRESIDENT lS HEREBY PLEASED TO transkr the ight, title clnd interesl acquired bg the Central Gouernment in the said propertA to Shri Pha.thumal Konw arma I I h ereino er referred to as the lransferee) su bject lo the follou.ting^{tenns and condili<srts:- (1)x-xx(2)xxx (s)xxx (omttted)}

¶136

Executed this dny of lVh Apil, 1968 at Bombay bg the Managing OJLicer, Bombay on l:ehalf of the President."^(enlpllasis supptied)

¶137

14, From a rcuding ol the Sanad datr:d l7-04-1968,^{goes to}

¶138

sho\' that it u'as issr-ted in f:rvour of Phatumal Keinu'armal Lakhr'r'arti

¶139

in his individual capacitv u,ith the Sanacl i.rttaining finalit.' as there \:as no challenge thcreto in an,t'manner as prcscribcd utltler 195'1^Act and the 1955 Rules made lhere under. Tllere cannot^{be an-t'enquin} or interpretation as regards the content and nalure of conveyancc^of suit schedule property under the Sanad after 50^years of its^allotment

¶140

The terms of Sanad clearly indicate that it conveys absolute^{title to the}

¶141

transferee i.e. Phathumal Kan'"varma-l Lakhrvani and it^couldbe cancelled only by the Authority which^granted the^{Sanad under} Sections 22,23,21 &25 of the 1954 Act

¶142

75.^'l'he plaintiff is secking to reopen tllt: tlature ol^{illlotnlcrltol} Sanad b1'\'a]- ol suit for partltion as there is trO limitatiotl^{lbr sceking}

¶143

¶144

the rclicl of partition. TI're plaintiff^(licl not seek anl declaratorr- relief kr'ro\'ir-lg fullv u'ell that it s,oulcl be timc barred as such the plaint is a ('le'('r (lral-ting to maintilin thc suit il it is a srrit ft.rr p:rrtition. though tlre subjcct merttcr has become clectcl ulood

¶145

Lr-r PUJARM. MADAN GOPALI, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶146

held that Sanad issued under 1954 Act conveys absolute titie. The Sanad in this case was granted in favour of Phatumal Karwarmal Lakhwani under the provisions of 1954 Act and the 1955 Rules, conveys absolute title unto him alone. The plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 u,ho are the legal heirs of younger son do not have any cause of itction to Iile the partition suit. Under Rule 85 ol 1955 Rules, '"vhich

¶147

rr:acls lrs tt nclc r:

¶148

85 . Potuer of ciuil courL I'he Chie.l' Settlenent Comn'tissioner , tlte Regional Settlenrctt Clornrnissloner atld the Settlement OJjlcer mag Jbr^{the purpose of deciding any clisputeunder Sectiotl 9 of Lhe} Act:^(a) determine after summary enqutry the title to anA propertA; (b) determine ang dispute betueen joint or iual claimanls and assess the share, if ang, of each claimant tn the compensation; (c) bing on record the legal representatiues of a deceased claimant & (d) order consolidation of tuLo or more ca.ses u.thich inuolue a common question of laut or fact.

¶149

'^{(1989)s scc433)}

¶150

¶151

states that in casc of any disputes as to^payment of compensation under Section 9 of 1954 Act, the authorities under the Act are vestcd '*-ith^{povversof the civil Courtto decide anv disputesof title issu.sof} assessment and allocation of share bet$'een riv:ll clairl:rnts

¶152

17, Thc question as framed by the Court belo"r' itr the impucnc'd order as to \'hether the Sanad u'as issued lc; lhe elder sorr^{irs i\arlaof} HUF in his individual capacity or undivided family is to^{be decidecl at} the time of trial is misconceived as any embarking upon^such al-) enquiry dilutes the scheme of 1954 Act and 1955 Rules and^allows indirectly what is directly barred by Law. The^{plaintiff has not} questioned the Sanad nor the authority granting Sanad in^{favottr of} the elder son regardless of the fact that^{Sanadconve-vsabsolutetitlc} in favour of elder son alone and nothing remains^{to be dccided in thc} trial

¶153

I8. t'rom thc plaint averments takelt^{on its lace valuc, there is no} prayer for the relief of declaration of right in^plaintiff s^lavour.The plaintiff rely on the Sanad as the basis of his righl,^{but the Sanad as it} stands confers no right whatsoever on the^{plaintiff orhis} predecessors-in- interest. Without seeking the relief of^{declarationof}

¶154

¶155

right in the property, consequential reiief for partition of that property

¶156

is not maintainable. The plaintiff *.ithout seeking appropriate relief

¶157

ancl u,ithout having clear right to sue has filed the suit for partition by pafing Rs.2OO/- Court fee after more than 5O years ol issuance of Sanad and execution ol the registered salc transaction vicle Doc.No.763 of 1968 by the Sanad holder representc<l bv his GPA holdcr in fzrvour of the predccc ssors- in -title of thc rcvrsi,,n pr.tLIi,rrt'rscle fenclirnts l7 arncl 18 u ithout seeking the relicf of cancellation of those sale dceds and consequential relief for rccoven, o[ possession of

¶158

the land thereof

¶159

Order VII, Rule 1 1 a) & d) of CPC reads as Lrnder:-

¶160

" 1 1. Rejection of plaint:-(a) wlrcre it does not rJisclose a cause of action;

¶161

(b) xxx (omitted)

¶162

¶163

(d) uhere the suit appears from the statern.en.t in ttte ltLaint to be barred by anA lau):

¶164

(e) xxx (omitted)

¶165

(fl xxx (onitted)"

¶166

-lhe Corrrt in an enquirr', in an application m:rdc undcr Ordcr VII, Rule

¶167

1 l a) & cl) o1' CPC ensLtrc that Lhe plarint avermcnts u hcn takcn at

¶168

Iacc valuc satisl': tht: rc(lLriremen! ol presence of cause cli rction, even

¶169

il the averrncnls remotell, suggests so, then the surit cun proceed for

¶170

¶171

trial, but u,henever on a reading of the plaint there is no^{cuuse of} action on the face ol material filed and does not^give the^{plaintill'an1'} right to sue, the plaint is liable to be rejected so that the parties are not sent to a long drawn process of trial as it will be a^{futile exercise} with wastage of time, money, ener$/ and the^precious time of^the

¶172

Court. The enquiry under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC is lirmus lesl^but

¶173

not an empty' formality

¶174

Much relianct' is placccl on Rltle 19 ol' 1955^{Rulesto ilrgll. l htll}

¶175

allotrnent of lzrncl rurder S:utarl cvctr in tr-rdiviclr-ral capacitr^{mc:'tltsits if} it n e re ior a^joir-rt famill'. lor thc purposcs ol' allotment.^{Ruic I cl ol} 1955 Rules^g'l'rich rcads as under:-

¶176

" 19. Special^proutsions for^{pau nTent} of^{compensaliorttotouTL} tu mtlies -11) Were a claim^relctted.to properties teft bg the membets of an undtutded Hindu Familg in West^{Pak{stan(hereinafierrekted to as} the^jotnt famttg ) compensation shall^{be computed in the manner} lrcreinafier prouided in this rule .⁽²⁾ Where on the^{26th September} , 1955 ( hereinafter rekrred to as the releuant date )^the ioint familg consisted of :-

¶177

(a) two or three members entitled to clatm^{partition, tLrc compensation} payabte to such fomily shatl be computed bg diuiding the uerified^claim into tuo equal shares and calaiating the compensation^separatelyon each such share."⁽ emphasis supplied)

¶178

¶179

Rr,rlr' 1!) onl,v dcals r.r,ith cornputation i.e. (luantilicrition of extent ol

¶180

allotrnent and is a guiding principle for quanrifica rion of allotment in particular case before issuance of Sanad b1' the Authorin.under the 1954 Act. Reference to Rule 19 for the purposes of interpreting the

¶181

Sar,ad, which is in individual name of elder son is of no assistance as

¶182

Rule 19-B of 1955 Rules which reads as under:-

¶183

I 9-B Co tion ordinailu able to karta of ioint familu :- Compensation in the case of joint familg shall ordinarily be pagable to the Katra of the familg, but uhere the members of the joint familg do not agree that the compensation payable to the family mag be paid to the Karla of the familg, such compensation shatl be pcttci to each rnentber of the familg in accordance Luith LLis slrure speciJied in the .z.ssessrnenl order; or uthere the share is not so speciJied it ctccordance tuith such share as the Settlenent Commissioner ntoy hctuinq rectrtrd lo the principle of tlindu lcLut detennine.

¶184

nrakt's it clc.rr that i1 person allottcd land as Karta ol' HUF is

¶185

mentioned as such in contrtrd i stinction to individual allotmcnt and in

¶186

this case it is an individual allotment

¶187

Th,e other contention raised is that no limitation period applies to

¶188

a partition suit. It is an accepted and settled proposition and there is no dispute and there cannot be any dispute with that proposition

¶189

Bu! r* this case even pima facie, no right of the plaintill and his

¶190

¶191

(

¶192

family members is emerging under the Sanad document, atleast^to

¶193

endeavour to make an enquiry by allowing the suit to^proceed.The plaintiff is conscious of not making a claim of declaration in his fzn,our for more than one reason, ,lirstlg the suit r.l'oultl bc l-topcl(:sslv birrr('cl b1' Iau of limitatior-r arrd secondly he has to sheli dorvn Court^{lc'c as} the markr-'t value ol' the suit schedule propertv is high as it is^{u ithin} the vicir-rit.v ol Hvdcrabad citv and in an extent of Ac.64.10^{gts. and} half share Lhereol-comes to Ac.32.05 gts

¶194

It is settled law that cause of action is a bundle^{of factsu'hich}

¶195

give the plaintiff a right to claim relief against the defendant. In

¶196

MAYAR (HK LIMITED) us. OI,I/JVERS AND PARTIES^VESSELM.V.

¶197

FOR?UIRE EXPRES9 it u-as held thus:-

¶198

"......1t is apparent that the plaint cannot be rejected on the^basis of allegations made bg the defendant in his witten^{statement or in ang} application for rejection of the plaint. The^CourT has^{to read the entire} plaint as a uhole to fittd out tuhether fuJ dr-sclo.ses a cause of^actictnand iJ tt does then the plaint cannot be rejected bg the^{Coul exercisittqlhe} potuers under Order VII, Rule 1 1 of the Coun."

¶199

'^{2006(3) sccl oo}

¶200

¶201

ln KULDEEP SIIVGIT PATHANIA us. VIKRAM SIM.EI JDRIYAL3

¶202

it u'as held thus:-

¶203

"For an^enqr.ttry under Ouer VII, Rule 11, the Court can see only Luhether tlrc plai'tt or rether the pleadirLgs oJ' the plni'Lt[ (:otlstitute o curi.se r-,f crction. Pleadircls in lhe sense tuhere eL.,en cL-lier the stage oJ' Luritten steletnent if therc is rt repl[cation Jiled. ir o qiL,ot situoti.on the .surrrc ulso can be looked into to see tulrcther Lhere is ttrttl aclrnrssir.rn on Ihe part of the plairttff. In other u.tords under Order VIL Rule I 1, the Court hos to take a decision looking at the pleadings of the plctittiff onlg . and not on the rebuttal made bg the defendant or any other nateials produced bg the defendant."

¶204

The decision in BALASARIA CO.I\IS?RUC?IOIE /P/ LTD. as,

¶205

HANIIIIIAN SEVA TRUST4 is also to the effect that averments made in the plaint are relevant and at that stage the Court would not be entitled to consider the case of the defence and the question of limitation is a mixed question of lau, and fact. The proposition in the decisions cited b-v the Iearned counsel lor rhe plaintifl' is a settled proposition but those decisictns have no applicatiolt to the f.rcts of the llr'(^{sc^r, t ( lLS(' as thcreis no ('itLtsc of itctioit olr} a 1li:rirt^rcaciit'tg ol- the

¶206

pirrint irvt'rricnts itsclf altd the material cr.rnnccted thereri ith

¶207

' (20 t 7 l.Aw surT sc 55) '^{(2006 (s)} scc 6s8)

¶208

¶209

25, Dclendernts l:1 to 25 u'ho are purci-tascrs of rhe suit scl'redule propertv claim to be in joint possession claiming ou'nership rights thereon as such, the suit for partition betwecn plaintiff and defendants I to 13, without the plaintiff claiming an1' relief of declaration in respect of defendants 14 to 25 for eviction, cancellation of sale deed documents against them would not lie and there is^no cause of action to seek for partition $.ithout seeking appropriate relief against defendants 14 to 25. The Hon ble Supreme Court^has reiterated this Legal position in RAJENDRA BAJORIA as. HEMANT

¶210

KUMAR JALAN.'

¶211

The pou nr cotrl'erred on the CloLlrt to tertnitrtltt' it ciltl irction is a drirsliir onr'. ;rnd thc c:or-rrlitior)s cltIlIr(]rittt'rl^ttttd<'r Order Vll. Rlrlc I I ol CPC are l'cqLrircd to be strictiv a(lh('recl^to Reading of the averment.s made in the plzrint shor-rlcl not^{on l-r' bi:} formal but also meaningful. If clever drafting has created^the illusion of a cause of action, but on a meaningful reading thereof

¶212

rrotlt, show that the pleadings are manifestly vexatious^and

¶213

¶214

t 202 I scc online SC 764

¶215

mcritlcss. in thc sensc' ol not disclosing a clcar right to slr('. then

¶216

tlre Court should exercise its pou'er under Orcier VII, Rule 11 of

¶217

CPC and such a suit has to be nipped in the br-rd at the first hearing itself. The underlying object of Order Vll, Rule 11 of CPC is that when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action. the Courrt rn,ould not permit the plaintiff to unnecessalil.lr plotr3ct the procecdings. ln sltch a citse, it u,ill be necessar.r to l)Llt alr cnd to thc shzrrn litigntion so t.hitt further judicial tin'rc is not sastccl

¶218

(.I I, DAHIBEN Us. ARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI6, PEARLITE .LrirERS (P) LTD. as. MANORAIIIA SIRSI,T i!, T.

¶219

ARIVANDANDAM us. T.V. SATYAPALg.

¶220

[n a latesl decision in RAJEIVDRA BAJORIA us. HEMANT

¶221

KUMAR JALAIP, ttre Hon'ble Supreme Court had considerccl the decisions cited 6 7 8 supra and affirmed the above laid

¶222

proposition at paragraph 20 of the judgment, u'hich reads thus:-

¶223

rliiliiti{:ir i?:i 'lt(),;l lS(C lb7 -10.1 i S(^(()nl-iot S( /r) l

¶224

¶225

"2O- ]t coulrl tltus be seer, that this Court has held that^the pou.,er conferrerT on the Courl to tenninate a ciuil action is^a cl.rctsti-c one. ctnd tlrc conditions enumeratecl under^{Order VII Rule} 1 1 of CPC ctre reqtt.iretl to be strictlg adhered to.^{IIoweuer. under} Ordt,t /ll l?ule l1 of CPC, the chtty i.s^{crzsl. upon. th.e collrt to} tlpterrtirtr: rt.,itellrc:r lle ploint c7l.sr'1ose.s Q cluse of^actrrtn.lt11 stntiiniz.intl iltt' at,r'rrttizttts itt lhe ltlrtint. rtrttl^{ttt cortittrttlittttLt'illt} lltL rlot ilrla'/rts- rt'iitti it1;iui, or u,ltllitr't^tlir' stlit^{is barrt:ti i',tl ttttti} 1rirr.,. J'iri.s⁽ it:t;i ltri:: lt,.'lri tlirti^{t i'tr,'t :rt r i t' r It} 1^{i tt-i1rtit.lt't lrt.l t)tlt'rYl!} RIili: / I rtl^('/)('rs lltril ttrlicrt t.t pitittil^{r/r.'t'.'; ttol r/tsi'lo.sr'/i i'riir:'f.r)l} d.(li()n. lltL' CrnLrl tttttttld rtctt l.terrrtil tltt' ltlriit.tIJl^{lo l1l?/i('.'i'sr,.r/1h/} protract tltet p rot:t't:c1i rtt1.s. 1t llo.s beert^{lv'-/tl a/t.nIirt .sttt'/i (c(?s(r,r1} uitl Lte Tteces.sairl to Dut arL erid^to the^{sharnlitigcLtioll.so illQt} fu.rther^{judicial. tin.e is n-ot uasted."}

¶226

From a reading of the^plaint averments^{as it is, at face va1ue,it} is clear that no material muchless^{bundle of facts are pleaded\vhich} disclose any right to sue by^{the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no existing} right in the suit schedule^{properfJ- to maintain a suit for partitionand} onh, attt-mpts Io sccl< itn impcrrtissibli.^{r,:.interPretaii.)lrtll- illt'Sil:lllil} rlatccl I7 0.1 l!)(rE irs il' iL^\-erc tl^{soLtrce,r)l nqht lor' him u ll,'tl itl-s} clear that it is only an indiviclual^{allotment in feivour of the elclcrson}

¶227

¶228

and the suit is barred under Section 36 of 1954 Act. In the absence of anv declaratior-r of right, the plaintilf cannot srek orrlv consecluential relieI ol partiLion of rhe non-cxisting property at thc hancls ol'thc heirs of thc elder son. Tht plaintiff seems to have onlv asked for |0;rsr:'clrrCitti:rl rclicj-as lilr\ ;rttcnrl)t art scckinLa <jr.r.lirnrlron ()l i1n! rigilt rn Ll're suit scl-redule propcrty is barred by thc 195.1 Act ancl the I 955 Rulcs. ln the back ground of these facts, the Court cannor permir an arro\'In the dark that only seeks consequential reliel of partition without any averments that disclose a declaration of any right $,hatsoever in the suit schedule property.

¶229

In view of the above analysis and having regard to the plaint averments at its face value, the point is answered in the affirmative, thc order impugned is set aside and the revision petition is allorved anrl :rs :r rlecess.trv- corolktn,, the plaint in OS No. 139 of 20lg srands rtjccted. Miscellaneous petitions if anl pcncling staltd disposed ol'

¶230

¶231

'l'ht'rt sitrtll l;c no orrlr:r i.rs to (.osts.

¶232

sD/-G. SIREE HA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY//

¶233

SECTIO OFFICER

¶234

To,

¶235

'1. The Vlll Additio nal District Judge,Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar o e CC to SRI . K SARATH, .Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI V V RAMANA, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. B. IUAYUR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC 5. Two CD Cooies Fi.oot'^sFeonC@J' Sr(

¶236

HIGH COURT

¶237

DATED: 1710312022

¶238

HF- rs
o O B JUI{ 2U22 o
5
*
t

¶239

ORDER

¶240

CRL.P.No.1941 of 2021

¶241

ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION