Allowed

Dattatri Rao v. Akshay

Telangana HC7 Jul 2023CRP/1812/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana heard two civil revision petitions filed under Article 227 and Section 151 CPC. It allowed the revision, quashed the impugned interim order dismissing applications for framing additional issues, and directed the trial Court to frame the additional issue regarding the validity of a gift transfer. The property suit need not be reopened as no additional evidence is require

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 19.06.2023 setting aside the interlocutory applications was quashed. Direction given to trial Court to frame the additional issue as proposed. No reopening of suit required.

Dattatri Rao Vs Akshay — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶6

CIVIL REVtsto N PETITION N os :1812 and 1813 0F 2023

¶7

c.R.P. NO. 18 12 0F 2023

¶8

Petition Under Articre 227 ot constitution of rndia aggrieved by the common order dated 19-06-2023 in r.A.No.950 0t 2023 in o.s.Ni] s+ ot zo6a on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad

¶9

Between

¶10

Daftatri Rao, sl0 Shvam Rao(. aged abour.22 years. occ. private service, Rio Argore village, Zaheerabad tr/andal. n/eOat OLi-'

¶11

..,PETITIONER/ Ptaintiff

¶12

AND

¶13

1 ll.,l:y ,SlpILIyf:l uorony, zaneerabad I ownAsed 22 years, occ. Student R/o Sriram Nasar

¶14

2 Harikishan Rao, s/o Late Nageshwar Rao Aged about 26 years occ. pr Employee.

¶15

3 shivakishan Rao, s/o Late Nageshwar Rat), Aged abour24years occ. pt . empioyee.

¶16

Plaintiff No. 2 & 3 Both are Rro 11-4-12 Bharathnagar colony, siddipet town and Diskict .. Respondents/ plaintiffs No. 2 to 4

¶17

Shyam Rao, Sio Venkat Rao, aged about 50 years, R/o AJgole village, Zaheerabad Mandal.

¶18

Smt, Veena. D/o Shvam Rao (Wo Ananthrao ) aged about 26 years, R/o Katteher virage and ManoJi, rireseniiv i".iJisilinrgore viirJg€i.zah'eerluao Mandal.

¶19

Kum. Rekha. Dio Shvam Rao, aged about 20 years, Occ.Student, R/o Algole Village, Zaheerabad iMandal^-

¶20

Dilip.Rao, Dilip Rao s/o shyam Rao, aged about 20 years, occ. student, R/o Algole village, Zaheerabad Mandal

¶21

8 Dinesh Rao, S/o Shyam Rao, aged about 1B years/ Occ. Student, R/o Algole village. Zaheerabad-Mandal.

¶22

9 Smt.^{Susheela,W/oLateVenkat-Raoaged about 70 years/Occ Household'}

¶23

" Hl'"'nig"r" tlllage Zaheerabad^Mandal

¶24

ln Ramesh Rao,^{S/o Late Venkat Rao' aged 48 years'/ Occ Agrl R/o Algole} '" i,iiirs". Zaheerabad lVlandal

¶25

1 1 c^{h a n d r a S h e k a r Kurk ar n r,if} J^{3l "r:?,::1:t ff i,i S%?1TdS"Tir ?:,'l+til*l} p" iril k5'r'is'^o i^H vd^erabad

¶26

ft?j ?fl^{!73ir,?1ii'?,,T;-;; Ft o o' t-i n g} "n

¶27

"iTJ.:fJ,3l'h3,|iJBtY6%3'"'l*:jii;ft^{::3'f'"'t'13"11tu';"T"*"'o} 'ti#;;;,il;;g;, A'nor Nasar' HYderabad'

¶28

,. B:l".S.5l#3:1s/:-J'li/iri3l,'Jii,A?t$9i,^fri;38,",1,1'0fl:1"'"'":"''' HYderabad.

¶29

14 Shanker^{Rao, S/o RamchanderRao' aged about 65 years' Occ'Agri''R/o} Munipally^Mandal

¶30

'- E'rirrprrrv "illage,

¶31

Smt.^{lndira, W/o Nageshwar Rao aged-about} "s'aalpet^4O-vears/ Tdwn and^Occ Mandal'^{Household R/o} H No.11-4-12^{anu"tnil'lg1'clr*v}

¶32

,uRH,u,lblgYJbl'S;Hi1f l,':$i,Ti[fi ::i,ft:,Ti:,'"?:"Jf'f; :Househord'

¶33

,, 3Tlsl? tsL i, y3", 5i'l; l, [33 S P,?x ft fl t: f,? J:s : ff : s 3Y3"5³ Lt^T1"', ^ " " "', Road

¶34

...RESPONDENTS/^Defendants

¶35

IA NO:^{10F 2A23}

¶36

petition under section^{151 Cpc praying.that in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{filed in suppori"tin" i*liJt' i1"1pn Court may be pleased to grant} stav of all^{further proceeo'tgtl;oidNo s+lzooa onlnetite of Hon'bleJuniorcivil} :',ff ;^{Zr;;u"uJo p"noiniiitp"t'ro{ the above revision and pass}

¶37

c.R.P.^{NO.18130F 2023}

¶38

Petition^{Under Article227 of Constitutionof lndia aggrievedby the} common^{order dated rs-o'ilioii'i'-r'nlr'io'g+g-ot 2o23 in o s'No'54 of 2008 on} In"e iii;;;;co,tt^{ot tn"luniorcivir Judse' Zaheerabad}

¶39

Between

¶40

Occ. Private^{service, Rio Algole} Dattatri Rao, S/o,^{Shyam Rao( agedabout22 years} ,irfig;. z"n""rabad^{Mandal, MedakLlrsl}

¶41

...PETITIONER/^Plaintiff

¶42

AND

¶43

Akshay, S/o Anil kumar Aged 22 years, Occ. Student R/o Sriram Nagar Colony. Zaheerabad Town

¶44

Harikishan Rao, S/o Late Nageshwar Rao Aged about 26 years Occ. pT Employee.

¶45

Shivakishan Rao, S/o Late Nageshwar Rat), Aged about 24 years Occ. pt employee.

¶46

Plaintiff No. 2 & 3 Both are Rlo 11-4-12 Bharathnagar Colony, Siddipet town and District .. Respondents/ Plaintiffs No. 2 to 4

¶47

Shyam Rao, S/o Venkar Rao, aged about 50 years, R/o Algole village, Zaheerabad [Vlandal.

¶48

5 9TI,Veena, D/o Shyam Rao (Wo Ananthrao ) aged about 26 years, Rio Kalleher village and Mandar, presenfly residing aiAlgole viilagd. Zaheerabad [t/andal.

¶49

6 5y., Re*ha, Dio Shyam Rao, j aged about 20 years, Occ.Student, R/o Algole Village, Zaheerabad Mandal

¶50

Dilip.Rao-, Diliffiao Sio Shyam Rao, aged about 20 years, Occ. Student, R/o Algole village, Zaheerabad Mandal

¶51

B. Dinesh [a,o, S/q Shyam Rao, aged about 1 8 years/ Occ. Student, R/o Algole viliage, Zaheerabad l/andal

¶52

Smt. Susheela, Wo Late Venkat Rao, aged about 70 years/ Occ. Household, R/o Algole village, Zaheerabad Mandal^-

¶53

'10. Ramesh Rao, S/o Late Venkat Rao, aged 48 years,i Occ. Agrl., R/o Algole village, Zaheerabad Mandal.

¶54

'I l.Chandra Shekar Kulkarni, S/o late shanker Rao, aqed 4l vears. Occ. Aori.. g1d Qu9i1999., R/oAlgole vittage, Zaheerabad Man-dal, prdsenfly residin! ai H. NO.3-4-3761211, 47 yearsm, 2nd Floor, Lingampally, Kachiguda, HyOeribaO.

¶55

12.Smt Gayakl G. Na!!u, Wio Girish Naidu, aged about 33 yrsV, Occ. Household, R/o H.N0.3-6-648, Vyshnavi vill5, Ground flooi, Stieet No. 10, Himayath nagar, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶56

Rajesh Kumar Aganval, Si_o_N-arayana Das Agarwal, aged about 33 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No. 22-6-1078181, Gulzar House, Kali Kaman, Hyderabad.

¶57

l4.Shanker Rao, S/o Ramchander Rao, aged about 65 years, Occ. Agri., Rio Garlapally village, Munipally Mandal.

¶58

Smt. lndira, Wo Nageshwar Rao aged about 40 years/ Occ. Household, R/o H.N0.11-4-12 Bharath Nagar Colony, Siddipet Town and Mandal.

¶59

16.Smt .U.qa@Ut!arq, WoAnil KumarAged about 38 years, /Occ. Household, R/o H.N0.16-38, Sri Ram Nagar, Aflipur village, Zah-eerabad Mandal.

¶60

17 Smt Manujla, Wo Kishan Rao, aged about 36 year Occ. Household, R/o H.No.9-10-193 Suvidha Nivas, Siddarth Colony, Behind D.C.C.Bank, Manneili Road.

¶61

...RESPONDENTS/^Defendants

¶62

IANo:^{10F 2023}

¶63

petition under Section 151^{cpc praying that. in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit^{filed in suppJ;i ;; ilp"itl"t' ih" uior' Court mav be pleasedto} disoense^{with from firing t#'tlr.tiiiii l"pv} "t^{orderl-A No 949 of 2023 in o S No} 54 of 2008^{on the file} "f^{H;""1i;'i;;l"ib1"'rJudge' Zaheerabadpending disposal} of the above^{revision andPass}

¶64

Counsel^{for the Fetitionerin both :SRtN MANOHAR}

¶65

Counsel^{for the Respondent No' 8 in both :SRI ABDUL NAJEEB KHAN}

¶66

The Court^{made the following:COMMON ORDER}

¶67

HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1812 and 1813 of 2023

¶68

COMMON ORDER:

¶69

Heard Sri N.Manohar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, as well as Sri Abdul Najeeb Khan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8. In the light of the limited request sought for, issuance of notice to other respondents is felt not necessary.

¶70

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that two applications were moved uide I.A.Nos.949 of 2023 and 950 of 2023 in O.S.No.S4 of 2008 before the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, seeking the Court to reopen the case and frame additional issue, but, those two applications were dismissed and aggrieved by the same, plaintiff No.1 to the suit, who is the petitioner in those Interlocutory Applications, Iiled the present Civil Revision Petitions.

¶71

Upon hearing both the learned counsel ald upon perusing the documents that ale brought on record, what this Court could f,rnd is that the revision petitioner sought the Court to frame the following additional issue:

( {

Dr.CSL,.l^'</sup>

C. R.P.Nos- ) 812 arttllSl3 of 2023

¶76

Lr,rhether the suit schedule prcperties^u)ere gifted bg Shankar Rao, the Jather of^{defendo.ntNo.B} to defendant No.l and^{tuhetherthe. same is ualid} transkr?

¶77

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on^{this day, submits} that the issue, sought to^{be fr:rmed, is essential for deciding the} matter comprehensively on^{merits ald thus, the trial Court} ought to have taken the^{said issue as an additionalissue}

¶78

Learned counsei appeanng^{for respondent No.8 submits} that for quick disposal^{of the case,he is not raising any serious} objection for framing of^{additionalissue, however, his} apprehension is that^{the petilloner would drag on the matter for} the purpose of leading^{add.itional evideuce in case, additional} issue is framed. Learned^{counsel for respondent No.B also} states that certain admissions^{were made in} the cross-examination^{of PW- 1 regardingthe subjectissue.}

¶79

On that, learned^{counsel for the revision petitioner states} that at one point of time^{there u'as denial.}

¶80

Keeping aside the rival contentions, as the issue sought to be framed has its basis in the pleadings itself, this

¶81

Dr.CSL, J

¶82

¶83

C. R,P.Nos. I 8 I 2 ond I I I 3 ol 2023

¶84

¶85

I t

¶86

court considers it desirabte to direct the triar court to frame the said issue as an additional issue.

¶87

l,earned counsel for the petitioner submits before this Court that no additional evidence would be led on framing of additional issue.

¶88

Such a submission is recorded. Thus, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of as under:

¶89

Common Order rendered bg the Court of Junior Ciuil Judge, Zaheerabad, in I.A.Nos.949 and. 9SO of 2023 in O.S..I[o. 54 of 2008, dated 19.06.2023 is set aside. Additiorual Issue, as sought for through I.A.No.9SO of 2023 to tLrc follotuing effect, shall be framed bg the trial Court:

¶90

"Wh.ether the suit schedule properties were gtjted bg Shankar Rao, tLrc fatLer of d"efendant No.g to defendant No. I and tuhether the sqme amounts to ualid transfer?'

¶91

In the light of the submission that no additional evidence is required to be adduced, the suit need not be reopened. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶92

Dt.CSL, J

¶93

C.R.P.Nos.l8l2^{andl8l3of 2023}

¶94

{

¶95

1 1. As a sequel. pending Mtscellaneous^{Applications, if any,}

¶96

shall stand closed.

¶97

Sd/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1- The Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad

¶102

One CC to SRl. N MANOHAR,^Advocate [OPUCI

¶103

One CC to SRl. Abdul Najeeb Khan ,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶104

Two CD Copies

t I

HIGH COURT

CSLJ

DATED:07/07/2023

COMMON ORDER

CRP.Nos.'|812 and^{f 813 at2023}

¶113

ti s iA 16.'
r
t .<br>a ..-..
d 14 rlJB 2$8
).r.''|:\ 'i. ,, ,''

¶114

I)isposing t-'1'lhc^{both C[{P!}

¶115

Without costs

¶116

@q"8
A
x3

Dattatri Rao v. Akshay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatri Rao v. Akshay

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

Sri. Syed Zakir Hussain, Vs The State Of Telangana

Mr. Mohammed Nissar Vs The State of Telangana

Kasturi Srimanjari Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs. SalvaruLaxmi and another Vs Mrs. Salvaru Leela and 3 others

Porandla Anand , Anandam Vs The State of Telangana

Sanjay Dhanuka Vs State of Telangana and 4 others