The High Court dismissed civil revision petitions challenging the trial court's order permitting a defendant to transpose as plaintiff in a partition suit after the original plaintiff died. The Court found no error in the order and held that no prejudice would be caused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3256 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
C.R.P.Nos: 2402.1 948,1 9s1,2403.2 430.2542,2643. 2446 and2435 ot 2023
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2402 OF 2023
Petition under Adicle 227 constitution of lndia against the Order dated O2-O2-2O23 in l.A.No 152 of 2021 in lA No. 169 ot 2O2O in OS No. 42 of 2O2O on the file of the Court of the lV Additional District Judge, FAC, lll Addl. District Judge cum Spl. Judge, for SC / STs (POA) Act, Sangareddy.
Between:
Bollampally Srikar Reddy, S/o. B. Ranga Reddy, Aged about 33 yrs, Occ. Business, Ryo. Plot No.25'l Bramarambika Colony Ameennpur (V) Patancheruvu mandal, Sangareddy Dist
...REVlSlON PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No. 3/DEFENDANT No. 23
AND
...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PROPOSED PLAINTIFF No. 2/DEFENDANT No. 1
3
(Respondent Nos. 6 to 30 are proformaparties to theCRP,No notice is required)
...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPCprayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition,the High Courtmaybe pleasedto Dispense with filing of the certifiedcopy of the impugned common order dated 02.02-2023 passed in LA.No.152 ol 2021in |.A.No.169ot 2O2O in O.S.No.42 of 2020.
Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl.V. RAMAKRISHNAREDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: ....
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1948 OF 2023
Petition Under Arlicle 227 conslitution of lndia against the Order dated 02-022023 in LA.No. 151 of 2021 in OS No. 42 of 2O2O on lhe file of the Court of the lV Additional District Judge, FAC, lll Addl. District Judge cum Spl. Judge, for SC / STs (POA) Act, Sangareddy.
Between:
...REV|S|ON PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT No. 23 & 24
AND
No. 2/DEFENDANT No. 1
,
Respondent Nos. 10 to 15 are all Ryo H.No.4-16, Tellapur village, Ramachandrapuram mandal, Sangareddy District.
6
(Respondents 7 lo 29 are Proforma parties to the CRP, no notice is required).
...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in in OS No. 42 of 2O2O on the file of the lV Additional District Judge, FAC, lll Addl. Drstrict Judge cum Spl. Judge, for SC i STs (POA) Act, Sangareddy, pending disposal of the above C.R.P.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. P. VENKAT REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI C. HARI PREETH
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI Y. NEELAKANTA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.6
:SRI NOMULA BHARATH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1951 OF 2023
Petition under A(licle 227 constilution of lndia against the Order dated 02-022023 in l.A.No. 151 ot 2021 in OS No. 42 ot 2O2O on the file of the Court of the tV Additional District Judge, FAC, llt Addl District Judge cum Spl. Judge, for SC / STs (POA) Act, Sangareddy,
Between:
Bollampally Srikar Reddy, S/o B. Ranga Reddy Aged about 33 yrs Occ. Business, R/o Plot No.251 Bramarambika Colony Ameennpur (V) Patancheruvu mandal, Sangareddy District.
v
...REV|S|ONPETITIONER/RESPONDENT No. 3/DEFENDANT No. 23
AND
...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PROPOSEDPLAINTIFF No. 2/DEFENDANT No.1
.----"b
1
(Respondent Nos.6 to 30 areproforma parties to the CRP, No notice is required)
...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the HighCourt may be pleasedto stay all further proceedings in OS No. 42 of 2O2O on the file of thelV Additional District Judge, FAC, lll Addl District Judge cum Spl. Judge,for SC/STs(POA) Act, Sangareddy,pending disposal of the aboveC.R.P.
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRIC. HARIPREETH
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI Y. NEELAKANTAREDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.5 :SRl NOMULABHARATHREDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:2403 OF2023
Petition Under Adicle 227 constitution oflndia against the Order dated o2-O2-2a23 in l.A.No. 153 of 2021 in lA No.168 of 2020in OS No42 of 2020on the file of the Court of the lV Additional District Judge,FAC,lll Addl. District Judge cum Spl. Judge, for SC / STs(POA) Act, Sangareddy
Between:
...REV|S|ON PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT No. 23 & 24
AND
Ie,
...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PROPOSED PLAINTIFF No.2/DEFENDANT No. 1
tl
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. P. VENKAT REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents
.-' 11.'
CIVIL REVIS ION PETITION NO: 2430 OF 2023
Petition Under Arlicle 227 constilution of lndia against the Orderdaled 02-022023 in l.A-No. 151 of 2021 in OS No. 42 of 2O2O on thefile of theCourt of thelV Additional District Judge, FAC, lll Addl. District Judge cum Spl. Judge, for SC / STs (POA) Act, Sangareddy.
Between:
Kondakalia Yadi Reddy, S/o K. Venkat Reddy, Aged 74 yearc, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. H.No.2-5, Upparpalli Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District.
...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No. 7/DEFENDANT Nos. 7
AND
...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PROPOSED PLAINTIFF No. 2/DEFENDANT No.1
,.-- I t ..,,
lry'
(Respondent Nos.3 to 30 are proforma parties to the CRP, no notice is required)
...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to Stay all further proceedings in OS.No.42 ot 2O2O on the file of the lV Additional Oistrict Judge, FAC, lll Addl. District Judge cum Spl. Judge for SC/STs (POA) Act, Sangareddy,pending disposal of above C.R.P.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. NAYAKAWADI RAMESH
Counsel for the Respondents : ..,
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:2542 OF 2023
Petition Under Afticle 227 constitution of lndia against the Order dated 02-02-2023 in I A.No. 154 ot 2O21 in lA No. 167 ot 2O2O in OS No. 42 ot 2020 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional District Judge, FAC, lll Addt. District Judge cum Spl. Judge, for SC / STs (POA) Act, Sangareddy.
Between:
l9-
...REV|SlONPETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT No. 23 & 24
AND
...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PROPOSED PLAINTIFF No. 2/DEFENDANT No. I
)h
Respondent Nos.1 0 to15 areR/o H.No.4-16,Tellapur village, Ramachandrapuram mandal, SangareddyDistrict.
lV''
(Respondents 7 to 29 are Proforma parties to the CRP, no nottcels _ iequired) ...RESPONDENTS / DEFENDANTS
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl.P. VENKATREDDY
Counsel for the Respondents : ....
CIVIL REVISION PETITIO N NO: 2643 OF 2023
Petition Under Adicle 227 constitution oflndia againstthe Order dated 02-02- 2023 in l.A.No. 152 ot 2021 in lA No.169 of 2020 in OS No. 42 of 2O2Oon the file of the Court of the lV Additional District Judge,FAC, lll Addl. District Judge cum Spl. Judge, for SC / STs(POA) Act, Sangareddy.
Between:
AND
...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PROPOSED PLAINTIFF No. 2/DEFENDANT No.'l
lB'
Respondent Nos. 1O to 15 are Rl/o H.No.4-16, Tellapur village, Ramachandrapuram mandal, s;;g";;;; ;;"il.c[."
--'L1--
(Respondents 7 to 29 arc Proformaparties to the CRP, no notice is required).
... RESPONOENTS/DEFENDANTS
Counsel for the Petitioner
:SRl. P. VENKAT REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents :...
ClVIL REVISIO N PETITIONNO: 2446 OF 2023
Petition Under Adicle 227 constitution oflndia against the Order dated 02-02- 2023 in l.A.No. 154 ot 2021 in lA No.167 of 2O2Oin OSNo.42 ot 202Qon the file of the Court of the lV Additional District Judge,FAC,lll Addl. District Judge cum Spl. Judge, for SC / STs(POA) Act, Sangareddy
Between:
Bollampally Srikar Reddy, S/o B.Ranga Reddy, Agedabotl! -33yrs Occ. Businels, itlo Plot No.25i BramarambikaColony Ameennpur (V) Patancheruvu maMal, SangareddyDist.
...REVISlON PETITIONERyRESPONDENTNo. 3/DEFENDANT No.23
w
AND
...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PROPOSEDPLAINTIFF No. 2/DEFENDANT NO.1
Respondent Nos. 9 to 14 are R/o H.No.4-16, Tellapur village, Ramachandrapuram mandal, Sangareddy District.
'))
))).'
(Respondent Nos. 6 to 30 are proforma parties to the CRP, No notice is required)
...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. V RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents : ...
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2435 OF 2023
Petition Under Anicle 227 constitution of lndia against the Order dated 02-02-2023 in l.A.No. 153 of 2021 in lA No. 168 of 2020 in OS No. 42 of 2O2O on the file of the Court of the lV Additional District Judge, FAC, lll Addl. District Judge cum Spl. Judge, for SC i STs (POA) Act, Sangareddy.
Between:
Bollampally Srikar Reddy, S/o B. Ranga Reddy Aged about 33 yrs Occ. Business, R/o Plot No.251 Bramarambika Colony Ameennpur (V) Patancheruvu mandal, Sangareddy Dist
...REVIS|ON PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No. 3/DEFENDANT No. 23
AND
...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PROPOSED PLAINTIFF No 2/DEFENDANT No. {
7>-
L.
(Respondent Nos. 6 to 30 are proforma parties to the CRP, No notice is required)
...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: ....
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWNG: COMMON ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
CwIL REVISION PETITION Nos.24O2 L94A 1951 2408 2430 2542 2643 2446 aod,2435 OF 2o23
COMMON ORDER:
All these civil revision petitions are hled against the order dated O2.O2.2O23 passed in various interlocutory applications lrled in O.S.No.42 of 2O2O on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Sanga Reddy.
O.S.No.42 of 2O2O lvas filed by one Smt. Bollampally Venkatamma seeking partition of the suit schedule properties against her sons, who are defendant Nos. I and 2 and 26 others. During pendency of the said suit, the sole plaintiff died on 29.O8.2O2O. Consequent upon death of the sole plaintiff, defendant No. I in thc suit, u'ho is arrayed as respondent No.2 in these revisions, filed differcnt applications seeking leave of the Court to transpose himself as plaintiff No.2 being the legal representative of the dcceased sole plaintiff and also as the person claiming share in ttrc slrit scheduleproperties. Itis settled law that in a suitlor partition, the defendants are also on the same footingas tLlat of lhe plairltilfsand they are also
2
entitled to share in the suit schedule properties. There is no dispute that defendant No.1 in the suit is the natural son of the sole plaintiff. As per the averments in the plaint, defendant No. I is also entitled to 1/3rd share in ttre suit schedule properties. Whether defendant No. 1 is entitled to 1 /3rd share or the original plaintiff is entitled to the share as claimed in suit are all matlers to be adjudicated during the course of deciding the suit or at an appropriate time. The only issue for thc present is, whe ther defendant No. 1, who is respondent No.2 in these revisions, is entitled to transpose himself as plaintiff No.2 and he be pcrmittcd to prosecute the suit.
3- The requcst made by respondent No.2 herein is opposed by the petitioners in this batch of civil revision petitions mainly on the ground that the son of respondent No.2 has already filed O.S.No.66 of 2Ol4 and the said suit is pending on thef-rle ofVII Additional District Judge at Sanga Reddy seeking partition of thc very samc propcrties. It is only to get over the admissions made by him and as witness in the said suit, the respondent No-2 got lllcd this suit through his mother in gross abusc of process o[ [as, and as such respondent No.2 cannot be permittcd to prosccutc thc suit in question, as he has alread-r' lrled O.S.No.66 Lt[ 2014 and also the present suit was hled in rhc
3
year 2O2O by the sole plaintiff. The present suit was instituted in the year 2O2O by the sole plaintiff and if the plaintiff would have survived, the proceedings should have been continued by the sole plaintiff and if the petitioners herein have any objections about maintainabitity of the said suit etc., it is open to them to raise such objections and contest the said suit. The alleged abuse of process of law by defendant No. 1, who is rcspondent No.2 herein, and getting the present suit hled through his mother etc., are all matters to be examined on hling the $,ritten statement or after filing appropriate applications by the rcspondents. The only consideration in this batch of civil revision petitions is, whether respondent No.2 is entitled to be transposed as plaintiff No.2 in the main suit and also as petitioner No.2 in the interlocutory applications.
4
prosecute the suit even in the absence of the sole plaintiff. In view of the fact that the said suit is for partition, in the circumstances, this Court does not hnd any error or irregularity in the orders passed by the trial Court, which are under revisions. However, the contentions with regard to abuse of process of law and procedure raised by learned counscl for thc petitioners are concerned, it is open for them to raise such objections either by liling written statement or by filing appropriate applications under Order VII Rule I of C.P.C.
b. Accordingly, the civil revision petitions are dismisscdThcre shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pcnding in the civil revision petitions shall stand closed.
Sd/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI //rRUE coPY// DEPUTY BEGISTRAR secrr&#rrcsn
To,
DL
HIGH COURT DATED:06/09/2023
COMMON ORDER
CRP.Nos.2402, $4aJ951,2403,2430, 2542,2643,2MG and 2435 ot 2023
1 nE STA ,G
(
q
co 22 OEC 20n t7
,./
I
DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS
t c
1 issue framed by the court
Whether respondent No.2, being the legal representative of the deceased sole plaintiff, is entitled to transpose himself as plaintiff No.2 to prosecute the partition suit.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Bollampally Srikar Reddy
M/s Raja Pushpa Properties Pvt. Ltd.
P. Mahender Reddy
Kondakalla Yadi Reddy
Smt. Bollampally Venkatamma
Bollampally Ranga Reddy
Mummineni Sudheer Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
