Allowed

Revuri Rama Devi v. Gopu Akhil , Akhileshwar

Telangana HC12 Apr 2023CRP/1150/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Article 227 challenging a trial court order that permitted impleadment of minor children as defendants in partition suit final decree proceedings. The bench held the trial court erred in allowing the impleadment without applying mind to prior rejected claims.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order allowing impleadment in final decree proceedings was set aside.

Revuri Rama Devi Vs Gopu Akhil , Akhileshwar — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s8 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SR] JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1150 OF 2014

¶8

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dt.30.01 .2014 in 1.A.No.488 of 2012 in l.A Nol51 of 2012 in O.S.No.22 of 2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, At Narsampet, Warangal Dist.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Revuri Rama Devi, Wo Samba Reddy, occ: -Household, Rl/o Narasampet.

¶11

Koppula Sabita, W/o Sudershan Reddy, occ:^-Household, R:/o Narasampet.

¶12

...REVISION PETITIONERS/R1 & R2

¶13

AND

¶14

Gopu Akhil @ Akhileshwar, S/o Sri Kamalakr Reddy @ Kamalakar, Occ:^- Student, R/o H.No.15-15, Narsampet Village.

¶15

Gopu Charan Vardhan @ Srinadh, S/o Sri Kamalakr Reddy @ Kamalakar, Occ: Student, Rep by his natural mother Gopu Aruna, W/o Kamalakar Reddy, aged 36 years, Occ:- Buisness, R/o H.No.15-15, Narsampet Village.

¶16

Gopu Buchi Reddy, S/o Late Katta Mallaiah, Occ:- Agriculture, Fi/o H.No.1517l1 , Opp.Gram Panchyat Office, Narsampet.

¶17

Gopu Kamalakar, Sio Buchi Reddy, Occ:- Pvt Employee, R/o H.No.15-17/1, Opp.Gram Panchyat Office, Narsampet.

¶18

Donti Swarupa, Wo Kamalakar Reddy, Occ:- Household,^Rl/o Chintakunta (V), Waradhannapet (M), Warangal Dist.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶20

CRPMP. NO:21415 OF 2015

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} receive the documents and marked^{as Exb A1 to AO enclosed to the petition by} condoning the delay in filing the same.

¶22

CRPMP. NO: 1596 OF¹⁰¹⁴

¶23

Petition un,ler s rction^'1 51 CPC^{prayingthatin the circurr stances statedin} the affidavit filed in sL^pport of^{the petition,the High Coudrni,'y [re pleasedto} suspend the order dt:0.0'1 .2014^{in l.A.No.4BB of 2012 in l.A l'lo1 j1 oI 2012in} O.S.No.22 of 2OO2 c,n :h,: file^{of the Junior Civil Judge, at Na-srrmpet, Warangal} District.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitio ners: M/s.^{BANKATLALMANDHANI}

¶25

Counsel for the Respo^{ndents:Mr. B. NARAYANAREDDY}

¶26

The Court made the fo lowing:

¶27

¶28

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAONAIDU} CTVIL REVIS^{ION PETITIONNo. 11 50 0F 2014}

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Feeling aggrieved^{by the crypticdocket orderpassed} by the learned^{Junior Civil Judge, at Narasampet} 1n interlocutory^{application vide I A No 4BS of 2Ol2' the} respondents^{who are defendants in the main suit preferred} this Civil^{Revision Petition under Article 227of} Constitution^{of India'}

¶31

The respondent^{Nos'1 and 2 filed the above said} interlocutory^{applicationunder Order 1 Rule 10 (2) r/w} Section^{151 C.P.C. with a prayerto add them as defendant} Ns. 4 and 5^{in O.S.No'22of 2OO2 In the affidavit filed in} support of the^{petition one Smt' Gopu Aruna'the guardian} of respondents^{Nos.l and 2/proposed parties' ltled her} affidavit^{before the trialCourt with thefollowing} averments:

¶32

The proposed^{parties/respondent Nos'land 2 in the} present revision^{are the minor childrcn of the said Aruna}

¶33

\ \

¶34

¶35

SSRN, J CRP Ni:. I -l 50 of 20 14

¶36

and tlrev a^-e abso1u1,e owners and in exclusl,o possession and enjovl i€nt of house propert5r with op€rr plot bearing Gram Par-r rf avath No. 1 5- 1 5 of Narsampet /illage . The minors' g,uirrlian of the proposed parties has ::laimed that she altn11^, ,,i -h her ntinor children living separ.atr:ly in the abor,e said 1()use in view of the disputes ll.ith h:r _-rusband. The patern al grand father of the minor ch lt [re.t is also residing u,: h them. She has further statecl irr :he aflidavit that one Cl rpru (66qraiah is elder brother ,rf re spondent No.3 herr:ir iuld 1st defendant in O.S.No.22 o. 2022. The said K,rmur atah r,r,,as also living with thr:m. In virrlv of the services rer dered by the guardian during hrs Life time, he had execrr1.,rd a will deed on 28.11.199.1 antl bequeathed properl y co rl;isting a. house with open plot a,lmeasuring 22O sq.varlsr bearing G.p.No.15-15 in favour of the responrlent Nt.1/proposed defendant No 4. AItr:r the death of Gopr,r Xot errraiah, the respondent Nos. t anrl 2 have filed an apF,1ica. o.t before Gram Panchayatlt ar.r,1 so ught for mutation : f property and accordingly mulation \r:as affected vid: proceedings in File No.40g iBL,,2OO7. The

¶37

¶38

SSRN, J CRP No.I 150 of^{20 74}

¶39

respondent^{Nos. Iand 2nave paid requisite fee of} Rs.1720/- to the Gram^{Panchayath. The respondentNos'1} and 2 have demolished^{the old and diiapidatedstructure in} the said property^{and later constructed a building after} obtaining necessary^{permission from Gram Panchayath'} The respondent Nos.7^{and 2 were in peaceful possession} and enjoyment of^{the property without any objection from} any person.^{The respondentNos. Iand 2 and otherparties} to the suit did^{not raise any objection for the mutation} proceedings.

¶40

But, subsequently,^{someofficialsvisited the suit} schedule property^{and enquired about the door number'} and the respondent^{Nos.1and 2 came to know that a} decree was^{passedfor partition of the property bearing} Door No.15-15.^{Therefore,the respondent Nos'l and2} have obtained certified^{copy of decreeand could realise} that a decree^{was passed behindtheir back'}

¶41

Therefore, the^{respondent Nos land 2 filed claim} petition vide I.A.No.236^{of 2012 in the final decreepetltron}

¶42

I ,

¶43

¶44

SSRN, J CRP Nir.I^j 50 of 2074

¶45

r.c . LA t\1,..151 ol |2012, but the petition :ilerl br. the re spor- clr:r-rr l{os. i and 2 u.as rejectecl lr.r, the trial Court. The r('si)o lc eltt Nos. I and 2 ihave clzLinre.d rhal the pr:ti1io rt,r's herein hilve plaved fraud and rtisgrudect tl-re tr,al c,rrr-L ar-rd obtairccl a decree for pirrtrtir,r. b.l-rir-rrl tl-re beLck ol'rcspor-iclent Nos.1 and 2.

¶46

5, TJ-rc :. :spondenl Nos. 1 and 2 through thei - mothcr and grLari Lr soueht to be impleaded as rlef:t.rdant Nos..1 and 5 ir .he main suit. The above said petit.ion u,as opposcd ri tht: respondents/ plaintiffs. The 1,,r pretitioner q ho is 1t1;Lintifl No 1 in O.S.No.22 )f 2O(,2 ancl 1., respor)(1el)L rr, the abor,e referred rnterlocurorl. applic:Ltion filed countr:^- rrffidavit at-rd informed the Ctourt that the said GoptL l(orrL rraiah ^'its owner and possessct- of house propcrt. Lrez.nng door No.15 15 along with the €rpprrtenant open lancl a lrneasuring 220 sq.yards. The sai 1 KomuriLial-r \r,as unrnarr ed and diecl intestate on 13.12.11))",,. \fter the death o1' s,ij,I iomurai:rh, the petitioner/lrlaintifl Nos.1 ancl 2 acq rirer l+ share in the said pr,)l_ erl.. l.he

¶47

¶48

ssRN, J CRP l\lo. I l5O oJ 20 14

¶49

petitioner/plaintiff Nos.l and 2 filed O.S.No.22 of^2OO2 against 3 defendants who are shown as respondent^Nos.3 to 5 in the present revision and sought lor partition.^The trial Court passed preliminary decree in O.S.No.22^{of 2OO2} on I2.12.2OO3. Therefore, the petitioner^Nos. I and 2^are entitled to % share in the above said^property. Subsequently, the petitioners have filed^{petitionfor final} decree vide I.A.No. 151 of 2012. The father of the^proposed parties by name Kamalakar was party to the above^said partition suit. Therefore, the decree passed by the competent Court is binding on the^{respondents/proposed} defendants. The father of the^{respondents/proposed} defendants did not state anything about the^{alleged will} said to have been executed by Gopu^{Komuraiah.The} petition hled by the respondent^Nos' I and^2vide I.A.No.238 of 2OO2 was dismissed on^{22.08.2OI2.There} was no appeal or revision against the^{said order. Therefore,} the said order became final. But, the^{petitionerswithout} disclosing all these details, filed^{I.A.No.488of 2012 and} sought to be impleaded as defendants^{to the main suit and}

¶50

t I

¶51

¶52

SSRN, J CRP -\rr. I -l5O oJ 2O14

¶53

responde rlrs to the final decree proceeditlgs. l'l-re t.1al Court allorvecl rh( l,etition tx' the tbllorl'ing docket or d _-r:

¶54

"Dt 3l ).,1 1 20 14

¶55

r\ftt:r goine rhrougl-r the petition and <:or:ntr:r, it rvas i'lt tl a the petittot-t ma_r. be allor,rre d tn tt.de^- to r,*,oid r,ru ti )1 crtY of proceedings ir-r future arld to i1,oid fLrtlrrr itrgations. No just conclusron ca_.i be arnved v, itho -rt adding of proper and neo€rs si1n, parties. I ler cr this pctition is allor.r,ed 1rv 1t:r'mi _ting the petiti( ner to rmplead the petition sr:he'dtLL,,r persons as dcfe n' [ant.s in the main suit."

¶56

Fr:elin q r-rot happy with the above sa d or-der, the petitioners, pJaintiffs irr the main suit lilcd th s re.,ision on the follo$,irr I ,I(lunds

¶57

Tlre tr ial Court passed the impugtrerl r,rrler u,ithout g1'lng iln_' r e.rson as to hour the claim of resptndent Nos.1 and 2 cou d be relevant at the stage ol- { nal dccree proceeclings^'lhe trial Court failed to appr-ecizrte thal the earlicr l)c1.11 on iiled b-r' the petitioners undr,r i, cticn .17 of C.l).(1. r'r<1e .,rr.No.286 of 2012 rrvas dismissccl and as there [ as nc ap1 e;rl. the order became final. Tht: trial C,turt

¶58

SSRN, J CRP No. I I5O oJ 20 14

I I

faiied to appreciate that respondent Nos. i and 2 have created will deed said to have been executed by Komuraiah, which is evident from the lact that respondent No.3 who is none other than the brother of Komuraiah and respondent No.4 who is father of proposed parties, did not whisper anything about the alleged will deed at any time. The trial Court failed to appreciate that respondent Nos. I and 2 were projected by defendants in the main suit only to resist the final decree proceedings, but they have no right over the property nor they are proper and necessary parties to the suit. Therefore, the petitioners/plaintiffs sought for dismissal the petition.

¶63

7. Heard both parties.

¶64

B. Now the point for consideration is

¶65

Whether the tial Court failed to appreciate the actua.l fact^{and passed} an order witltout application of mind? If so, wltether tlrc order is Liable to be set asid,e?

¶66

I I

¶67

¶68

SSRN, J CRP AIe. -I l50 oJ 20 14

¶69

9, POTN T

¶70

-l'lrc pr:tition vidc I.A.No.4B8 ol 2,112 lri,s becn liled by the r,:s; tc,ndent Nos.1 and 2 herein and t hev want to come⁽⁾ⁿ r,::r,rcl as dclcndant Nos. 4 and 5 ir-r tlte main sllit u,hich u zrs disposed rnuch prior to filinyl of thr: abor..e said interloc;ulo y application. As could be s,:en f-crm ths 6.6.. alrd othcr )r'.lceecliliFls placed before this Corrr -, O.S.No.22 of 20': .)2 dcciclr:d long back. Tirc f rr her- of tl-re respondent llos.1 and 2/proposed parties to the suit who rvas dcfertr ant No.ul in the suit never r:ris:c anv claim abotrt lhe r,r.il1 deecl said to have beerr ex€cuteC bt, his brolhe r. I(r rrLuraiah. Similarly, the fa ther <. f the said Komuraizrl-r v,,ho u,as also party to thr suir pr(rcee(lings ne,vcr.,r,hispered zrnlt.hing about the u,ill deei Tlre rc.cord further sho.vr; that subsequent to the disposirl of the suit, the respon ftrnt Nos.l and 2 filed claint p,:tition vide I.A.No.23tr of 2012 and questioned the tinal dccree procecrlir.rgs in LA.No.151 of 2012. Ad,nittel.y, the said clairn l,clrttr,n liled b1 rcspondent Nos. I irnrl 2 r,,as rejected bv thc trial iourt

¶71

¶72

ssRIv, J CRP JVo.I I5O of 2014

¶73

The contention and claim ol respondent Nos.l and 2 in the earlier claim petition u,hich was rejected by the Court below and petition filed by their guardian under Order 1 Rule 1O C.P.C. are one and the same. The request of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to add them as party in the final decree proceedings by virtue of a claim application was rejected and they did not choose to file any appeal or revision against the said order. But, subsequent to the dismissal of the said application, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed petition under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. and want to come on record as defendants to the main suit and respondents to the final decree proceedings. It is true as per Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. the Court on its own motion or on the application filed by the party, can permit any person to be added as party to the proceedings, provided that the petitioner is able to establish that he is a proper and necessary party to that particular proceedings

¶74

1 i . The basis for the petitioners to come on record is alleged will deed, but there was no whisper about the

¶75

T $.,

¶76

¶77

SSRN, J CRP ,\ir. I -' 5O oJ 20 14

¶78

allegerL u ilr ci ur-ing tl-rc timc ol trlal. The clilinr )elition filed bv the s:ii )c l)arties, claiming right on thr: prropcrtv '"r.as rejected.^'[ hc proposcd parlies did r-rot ftl, anv appeal agalnsl th( said order, and filed petition urrricr Order 1 I?u1e 10^(j. '}.(:). and the Court belon' witLout < 9-rsiCeri.g all these aspt: :t s, allou ed the application bv zr <,r-vprtic order rvithotrt a.r^, l'eitsons as 1o hou, the Courl below carrre to the cc)nclusicrr a louL LIt€r rlehi oI the re spotrdr]n s to corne on record ar:d ar; to hou,the-v are proper an(1 lteclssatr parties to Lhe ftrr:r rlecree proceedlngs. lt is true tL r: respondent Nos.1 anri . i have claimed right on the proper,1 b1. rrirtue of a will ,leerc trut there rs no expianation for t tr. 6qyn1sn11.. as to rvh\ sl-rch claim u as not takerr b1- tt r: father and brother of d:ceased Komr-rraiah. It is vert e asv for the responde;tr llos. I and 2 herein to raise a .lainl on the proper'.1: lr tho gr,lisc of a u,il1 deed. In the pr tscnt set of ctt'cumsteLrL :es, it is very clear that a false p lr:a has been taken b,v- :h -,^-espondent Nos.1 and 2 onlv rc ( e av the final decree pl'o( e,ldings. Tl'rerefore, there a:-e p1, grcunds to consid<'r tl-,' t'equest ,.tl the respondent Nos.I :rr-rd 2 to add

¶79

¶80

SSRN, J CRP No. I 15O of 20 14

¶81

them as defendants' in the final decree proceedings. But, the Court below without considering these issues and without giving any reason, allowed the application. Therebv, the order is liable to be set aside

¶82

In the result, the Revision Petition is allow,ed

¶83

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if

¶84

any, shall stand closed.

¶85

//TRUE COPYII

¶86

Sd/. A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR q,

¶87

SECTION OFFICER

¶88

To,

¶89

The Junior Civil Judge, At Narsampet, Warangal District.

¶90

One CC to M/s. BANKATLAL [\4ANDHANI, Advocate IOPUCI

¶91

One CC to SRt. Mr. B. NARAYANA REDDY, Advocate topucl

¶92

Two CD Copies

?Mc.,

HIGH COURT

SSRN,J

DATED:.1210412023

/-
I
I /; ilr 2tP3

ORDER

CRP.No.1150 ol 2014

Qln-c. s\b'

ALLOWIN(I'fIJI]^('RP

Revuri Rama Devi v. Gopu Akhil , Akhileshwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Revuri Rama Devi v. Gopu Akhil , Akhileshwar

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

J. Srinivasa Rao Vs J. Vittal Rao and 5 Ors.

Sri. Praveen Kumar Prabhala, Vs Pingle Vasundhara

M/s Unik Industries Vs M/s Amazon India Ltd. and 7 Others

Kasamalla Venkataiah Vs Gunreddy Ramulamma and another

Kisna Avenues Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sharada Devi Kedia

Smt. R. Harika,a.Swathi Vs R. Srikanth Nayak