Dismissed

Dr K Babu and another v. K.Mallesh and 8 Others

Telangana HC17 Feb 2023CRP/2053/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, bằng(actual) exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, dismissed the civil revision petition filed against the trial court's order framing additional issues in a property partition suit, holding that no error was committed as issues can be framed to ascertain the real dispute.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications stand closed. The revision is dismissed without costs.

Dr K Babu and another Vs K.Mallesh and 8 Others — Partition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^2s86 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO

¶6

CIVIL REVIS ION PETITION N O: 2053 OF 2022

¶7

Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia against the Order dated 5-9-2022 in l.A. No. 6484 of 2022 in O.S No. 59 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderbad.

¶8

Between

¶9

Dr K Babu, S/o Late Kurakula Sayulu, aged about 68 years, Occ. Doctor, R/o.R/o.Flat No.103, Cholas Residence, Vasavi Nagar Colony, Karkhana, Secunderabad

¶10

Dr.K.S.Ashok Kumar, S/o.Late Kurakula Sayulu, aged about 64 years, Occ. Doctor, (Both are Fyo.Ryo.Flat No.103, Cholas Residence, Vasavi Nagar Colony, Karkhana, Secunderabad)

¶11

...REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 2 & 3

¶12

AND

¶13

K.N4allesh, S/o.Late Kurakula Sayulu, Aged about 72 years, Occ. Retired Govt. Employee, R/o.H.No.4112 and 42 Fisherpua Picket, Secunderabad.

¶14

....RESPONDENT No.1/RESPONDENT No.1/PLAINTIFF

¶15

K.Narender, S/o.Late Kurakula Narasimha, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Business, No.3-44-144, Sy.No.14 Beside Plot No.41, lshaq Colony, Near AOC gate, Secunderabad-15.

¶16

K.Anand, S/o.Late Narasimha, aged about 47 yearc, Occ. Development Officer, LIC of lndia, RJo. Mahaboobnagar, Presently Ryo.Plot.No.33, 3rd Floor ,Sai^{Sagar Enclave,Opp. Manasaroovar VillaNo.2 Kanajiguda,Bowenpally,} Dairy Farm Road, Thirumalgherry, Secunderabad-1 5

¶17

K.Srinivas, S/o.Late Narasimha, aged about 49 years, Occ. Marketing Executive, R:/o.Visalchapatnam. Presently Rl/o.Flat.No.102, D.No.10-2-278, Plot.No.253, Suresh Harivillu Apartments, Next to Basant Shahney, West Marredpalli, Secunderabad.-26

¶18

Smt.K.Kalavathi, D/o Late K.Narasimha, Wo L.Bikshapathy, aged about 65 years, Ri/o H.No.5-1-208/16/1, Shanthi Nagar, Yapral, Secunderabad-500 087.

¶19

Smt. D.Laxmibai, D/o Late K.Narasimha, W/o D.Nageshwar, aged about 59 years, Rl/o 3-109/1, Badangpet, Saroomagar, Rangareddy District, Telanqana-500 058.

¶20

Smt.P.Jyothi, D/o Late K.Narasimha, Wo P.Srihari, aged about 54^years, H.No.9-1-42lA, Flat No.302. AF Residency, Prashanth Nagar, Langer House, Hyderabad-500 008.

¶21

Smt. Ivl.Swaroopa, D/o Late K.Narasimha, Wo Late M.t\4allesh, aged about 53 years, H.No.9-2-391/1, Pensionpura, Langer House, Hyderabad-500 008.

¶22

Smt. D.Sujatha, D/o Late K.Narasimha, W/o D.Amarnath Rao, aged about 51 years, H.No.16-1-553/13/B, Saidabad, Hyderabad-500 059.

¶23

...RESPONDENTS 2 to 9/RESPONDENTS 2 to 9/DEFENDANTS 1,4 to 9

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. SRIKANTH HARIHARAN

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No-1 : SRI G VASANTHA RAYUDU

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : SRI ERANKI PHANI KUMAR

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 : SRI B^MOHAN

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

/,\IJ ( Rt \a:t)j.t ol:t)::

¶30

¶31

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶32

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2O53 OF 2022

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

First respondent instituted O.S.No.S9 of 2022 in the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad praying to grant decree of partition and separate possession in the plaint schedule A', B' and 'C' properties; for settlement of accounts for the properties occupied or alienated by the defcndants; to grant permanent injunction restraining defendants from alienating and disposing of any portion of the joint lamily property.

¶35

In the said suit, I.A.No. 1048 of 2O2l filed by respondents 5,7 to 9, to implead as defendants, was ordered ot27.12.2027. After they came on record, they filed Written Statement along with counter claim. On 27.07.2022, they have filed Memo enclosing additional draft issues. By Order dated 04.O8.2O22, trial Court framed additional issues. Opposing framing of additional issues and praying to frame only one issue revision petitioners, who are defendants 2 and, 3 liled I.A.(SR).No.6484 of 2022. On due consideration^{of the matter,trial} Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this {vil^{RevisionPetition.}

¶36

¶37

, tl

¶38

I have heard learned scnior^courrscl Sri }lari^{Haran for} petitioners, learned counsel Sri G.Vasantha Rayud u for^the respondent No. 1, learned^counsel Sri^{Eranki Phani Kumarfor} the respondents 3 ald^4, and the^{learnedcounsel} Sri^B.Mohan for respondents 5 to 9.

¶39

Learned senior counsel for petitioners would contend that the suit is of the^year 2OOO. By^framing additional issues at the instance of implead respondenl,s, the Court has virtually reopened the trial at a belated stage, whereas evidence was completed in the year 2008. Utrder the^guise of additional issues, the defendants filed application to recall four witnesses, who were examined almost a decade back and summoning witnesses to introduce new documents. It is nothing but conducting re-trial. He rvould submit that there was no application of mind in^passing the impugned Order. He would further submit that forgery cannot be pleaded by defendants, who are unconcerned with earlier transactions. Learned senior counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Matr'aa Lal Bangal vs. Manas Bhunia and othersr.

¶40

' 1zoor1^{z scc osz}

¶41

l'\ ri.l (_Rl \o -1lj-i d/ -r/,'-r

¶42

¶43

According to lcarned counsel for respondents, the respondents were impleaded as defendants only on 27.12.2027. After they were made parties, they filed Written Statement and immediately filed Memo to frame additional issues. In the said facts, merely because suit is of the year 20OO, the framing of additional issues cannot be held as not valid. They would contend that as per the practice in vogue on liling draft issues, if a party has anl' objcction, it must file objections, whereas the petitioner has not opposed the additional draft issues. The issues can be framed and recasted at any stage including at the stage of rendering^judgment. They would submit that in the year 2018 also, some additional issues were framed. I-earned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 relied on the decision of Honlele Supreme Court in Kalyan Singh Chouhan vs. C.P.Joshl2.

¶44

According to learned counsel for lirst respondent/plaintiff, this Revision is hled only to drag on the proceedings. Learned counsel supports the other respondents on framing of additional lSSLICS-

¶45

7 . Issues are to be framed based on the pleadings of the parties to the litigation. Issues are framed to ensure that the

¶46

'^{(zorr) rr scc zao}

!---

i) i.i

"/?rr \r-'r,jr r,/'ir'-'

¶51

parties to the litigation ccrrne to trial '"r'ith all issues clearll, dehned, to ensure that each side is full-y arvare to tlic^questions that arise for consideration. Framing of tssues enables the parties and the Court to determine the real d ispute(s) between the parties anci the area of conflict is narroived so that speclfic attention can be paid to the reed dispute/ controversy.

¶52

In Makhan Lal Bangal (sr-.pra), thc Hon'blc Supreme Court laid down broad guidelines on fra rninq of issucs. ln Kalyan Singh Chouhan (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held

¶53

'19. Pleadings and particulars arc rcquircC io cnable thc court to decide the rights o{ the paities rn thr: trjal. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the cou rt rir narrowinfl the controyersy involved and to infornl the parties^(:oncerDed t.o the question in issue, so that the panies ma1, adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. lt is settled legal proposition that "as a rule relief not founded cn the pleadings should not be granted". Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of ttre parties. The pleadings and issues are to ascertain the real rlispute between ' the parties to narro$, the area of conflict and to see just where tlre two sides differ. (Vide Si Malmnt Gouind. t?ao v. Sita Ram Kestn lla97 -9a) 25 IA l95l , Trojan & Co- v. Nagappa Cllettiar IAIR 1953 SC 235) , Raruha Singhv. Achal Singh [AIR 1961 SC lO97l , Orn Prakash Gupto. v. Rqnbir B. Gogal l(2OO2) 2 SCC 256 : AIR 2002 SC 665] , lshtuar Lhttt v. Collector (1,.A.) [(2005)^{7SCC 190 :AIR 2005 SC 3165] aodState of} Mahqrashtra^y. Hindustan Constnrction Co. Lrd. [(2010) 4 SCC 518: (201o) 2 SCC (civ) 2071)".

¶54

Having regard to the scope of framing issues and

¶55

additional issues and precedent decisiorrs, t.he trial Court is right in obsening that $'hether the said issrres are interrelated

¶56

P}'R.,J ('RP .\o )05 3 of)0t)

¶57

¶58

or any further issue required to be framed can be taken care while appreciating the evidencc and evcn during the process of delivering the^judgment'.

¶59

Having regard to the submissions made on consideration of the issue raised in this Revision, I do not see any error in the decision of the trial Court warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellancous :rpplications il ar-ry shall stand closed.

¶60

SD/.N,SRIHARI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶61

//TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶62

to'', . an" I Additional Chief Judge City civil c9Yn."l Secunderabad 2. one cc^{to snt snrrn"t'ir'iiehinnann' ndvocate[oPUCl} 3. one cc^{to SRI' G vAS;i'iiHA nAvuo^u'RouocateloPucl}

¶63

;. il; &^{io snr'e MoHAN'Advocate[oPUC]} 5. one^{CC to SRI' EReruxt'piinr'rr xurt'rAn' Advocate loPucl}

¶64

Two^{CD CoPies}

HIGH COURT

DATED:1710212023

ORDER

tL.q
Fe
c7 f.Y
tU
t-
€i|j)<br>o (a
Rr
c t.{

¶70

CRP.No.2053 of 2022

¶71

DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS

¶72

O.-
s

Dr K Babu and another v. K.Mallesh and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr K Babu and another v. K.Mallesh and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rt.Rev.Dr.Prof.K.Reuben Mark Vs E.Prabhu Kumar and 2 others

M v Raja Shekar Reddy and another Vs Dr. T Sheela Rao

Mrs. M Sirisha Reddy Vs Dr. T Sheela Rao

Mr. Cheemarla Nagarjuna Reddy Vs Mrs. Yasa Ramya Reddy

Lakanakunibi Yadagiri Vs Lakanakunibi Narasimha (Died per LRs)

Ms. Sabina Shazan Vs Dr. Vicar Qureshi