The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an impugned order of the Senior Civil Judge allowing the auction of schedule-A partitioned property among family members.
The civil revision petition was dismissed, confirming the impugned orders passed by the trial Court.
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.
[32s3 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTETVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
:PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3018 OF 2019
Petition Under Artrcle 227 ol the constitution of India against the Order dated I l/1 1/20 t 9 Passcd in I.A. No. 685/2015 in I.A, No. 943 of 2014 in O.S. No.l l/1989 on the frle of the Court of the SeniorCivil Judge, At Sathupally, Kiammam Between:
P. Janardhan Rao, S/o. Ramulu Gupta, Occ Business, Rt/o. H.No.10-1 17, Wy.a Town and lrrlandal, Khammam District.
... Petitioner/Respondent No.2/ Defendant No.2
AND
(Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are not necessary parties to this petition)
...Respondents/Defendants
lA NO:'l OF 2019
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 pursuant to the docket orddrs dt. 1111112019 passed in l.A.No. 685/2015 in 1.A.No.94312014 in O.S.No.11l1989 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, At Sathupally, pending disposal of above CRP.
Counsel for the Petitione(s):SRl. MUMMANENI SRINIVASA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri M M M SRINIVASA RAO
The Court made the following:
THE HONOIJRABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G, PRIYAD,{RSINI CML R-EVISION PETITION No. 30 t8 oI 2Ot9
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Potition. under Articli '.t.27 of the Constitutton c,f India. is c]rrc.cLrrl agalnsl. ther o-cers of the le zrrned Ser ior Civil .lrrclge .1t SathLlpally as;saili:g the orders datec 1 1.I1.2O l9 n-rade in i.A. \o. 685 ol 2Cr 15 in I.A. No. 94i; of 2Ol4 ln () S No. I I oi 198lr. iv the impugned ordr:r, thc le:trncc.l Senior Cir.il ..J ,Ldge :r. lorvt:d the application f iled by thc plerinrrt'I, respondent No 1 rerein, under Section 1 51 Cl.P.C. rctid u.ith sr:ctior 3 of the partition Ac., 1893 t,t: condr,tcLing auc:tion ol lhe suit schedule A pr,tperty amorlg thc partics L,r tl-rc lis i,i the open Court
x
l?.P. .\t' .it) i8 ol )rtlt)
iS said item:i of scl'reclule lrroperlir r;, schciirLle,.A lr.ope.t-. iilmov:r blc proper ,! ancl seekir.rq its di,.,isior-r, b.r. u,ar oi Iinal decn:c. [.r. N o f.i3 ol 2[) 14 came to be illed b], tlr,: plaintiff. Thc Aclr.oc:rte Cctnmissioner, u,ho wns airpoint.<.rr1 .to divide the schcdule-A propert.i. as i)er the preliminan. decree, aftcr serving due notices olt the partics. executecl the rvarran t and lilccl his leport cn 110.07.2015 sti_rting that lhe width of schedule-A propertA cruT its operr site l.s lerss thttn 9 .l'eet artd. there[ore, it cannot be bene_fi.cictlt g patl,itiotled rttlo 6 equ,al .share.s antj euen. iJ'tt is partitioned, rl cannof- help angbodg and th.e prapertll locses its ualue. As tto objections, to the said report, u,ere filed bJ, an,v of the part_', ir-r<:luding thc rcr ision pctitioner, the Advocatr.:. Commission petirion u,as closed on 14.08.2015. In llght of the reporI oI the Advocate-Commissioner, the plaintiff, respondcnt No,I hcrein. approachcd the trial Court u,ith the impugned l.A. lor conductir-rg auction of schedule-A property among the parties in the open Court. Initially, the said application \ as allor,,'ed b,r, the trial Court on 20.12.2017 , assailing u hich, rhe revision petitioner, defendant No. 2 in the suit, carried the matter to this Court
, :,*,i iB-+ E: -r - - "!;;-
v
( ,? /,. ,, _:tjt,)l :t)it)
I
in C.R.l'. \o E3 I of)(-) 1,9.'f lrrs('orrrr clrs rosc'rl i r'r<' sarcl rcVISlOn on 1,+.02.2O l8 dir-cctinq thc tria Col:t tr; lbl1,.-ru the prrncipl:s laid dou n b-r' the Apcs Cot-tr i irr Aloka Dudhoria v. Goutam Dudhoriat u hile app:.rrr inq tlrc Advocate Co nmissioner lor concluctrrg s:ill oI tlrc 1;r-lpertr Thereal'ter, t rc' trial Cortrl persseci orclers o:'r C7 O,r.2Ct 1B in L.A. No. 685 o{ 2015 [c,r- c:onclr-ri tinq aLrc'iicr r obr;ei,. ini] ih:it the matter r,,as consr<ir'fed as l)cr thc clc,:isro r rr-r Aloka Dudhoria (st-rpra) by rcceitrng thc rnarlicL cort 1l('at t fronr the Sub-Reqistrar, \'r'r'a. r'alr-ra[ic n c -.r-t licate, Encurnbranc: Certific:rtc ancl tllc ccl-ril-ied(,'o ll-\ o tlc salrr deed ol a ho-rse in thc' r,ictnrt-r'. Again, as sailiirs thc saicl orders, the re vision petitione r carric<l thc matrcr- I r( 'lslon bclore tlris Court being(l.R.l). No. 37r[ 1 ol' .0 i 8 .lontcndilg that thc tria. Court had r-rot follou ccl the ord:r, t,f this Court dated 14.O2.2O l8 in C.R P. No B:l I cf 20 1B in ordering auction of thc proyrcr-[\ ancl thaL t rC oL j(]cti,)11s olthc revision I,elitioner ro Lhe Ile porI ol the C(ln lrr issi(llter, clated 30,07.!i0 l5 u,ere not consrdcrecl. "ht: sarcl (l.ll.P rt,as allorved on 03.08 2018 directrng the tl ial ilouit to
AIR 20 1O SC 53
)
'r@
-l ! .il l' ,, .lt)18,,11t),,
consjide r t.hc principlcsi:rtd dou:riit Rani rLloka Dudhoria (supra) as directecl in C.R.P. No. 83 1 ol 2C18 and to follou' the provisions oft-he Partition Act,I 893.Subsequentll', the trial Court pnssed orde r on 2'-1.08.2018.q'hich reads as
under':-
"As per orders Tto.ssecl ir('RP;\rr. '3741 ctl'2018bg llon'bte High Courl, Sri I{. Nagestuar .liao o-ppoinledasAdut'cate Clom ml-s"-ton r.r to 1to,1.iLiort lltc oro1.t<',i:ttLs pt't' prr:!iminttryrlecree and contlttcl ouclLol ott'otttt i),t' littt:ii:tnttnthers rtrd <'.ciutlcctte fee is ttbout 3000/' lbr reporl crtll orr l,.i)9.201[-)o.ntl itllotuedthe u-pex courT ,Judgment Rcrti 4lokrrDuddut iall us.Gouthann Dudduiya o,nd others".
( t/' t, \ )l -l: j /
I I i I
21 .OB.2O 18. rcmanded the mattcr to the trial(lr; .n-t rvitit a direction to complv rr'rrh thc urde rs date rl O3.l- r :() I 8 in Cl.R.P. No. 3,7.+l of 20 18 irs :rlso thr: lri rs daLrd l+.02.2018 n C.R.P. No.6lll ol 20lB ancl also l, r'o.-rsirler the obje ctio es raised b,r, the revision [,:tjtic n,'r' to thc Advocatc Co-nmissionr:r's Ilcport clated ilC A'/..t.)l ir iLnci ro proceecl u itlr rhe rnaltcr- strictlrjlt acco clirn,', tii thc provisions ol tl-re Partitton Act. Tl'rerealter. r'id,: nr pr-tgned orders dated I 1.1 112019, thr: Lrial Cor-rrL ;,rliou r.tl i ./. No 685 o1- ,lO l5 rlircctirtg salc ol' plaint schc illrit' \ i)r'()pel [\ arnong thc f arnill, metnbcrs. Challengrn.e iltc s, un:, tl-ris revision is fil,:d by the defendant No. 2
(
w\
t-i4l
( ti l' .\r, lrtl) rt,/ )i)lt)
6
terl<en bv the trial Courrt rsr.'.!'ong:lnd tlio siitiic i-s li;-,ble to bc set aside, Thr: lmpugt-rcc! r.rrdr:r l).rs-scC l.r-r tirci.r,al Cour:t is bereft of reasons an,-l cr-., n ti-eri'r to illc provisiorrs of Sections 2 and 3 of the Palrition Act
" 16. T'hough u;unseL lor th.e l:;' respotrti(.t11 s()uql'il. Io .su.st.{i/r ,he said order, the conLentions ruist rl bq lhe cou.n:;tl lor the pelitloner haue substance because the C.ourt belotu itt the impugned ord-er hos not considered the objectrotts raised bg the petitioner to the Aduocate.Commissionar's Report d1..i0.O7.20 ) 5 nor ha.s it considered th.e print:iples Laicl tlorun in Ranl Aloka Dudhoria's
( ll l, 'rt it)1,\ ol-ttit)
('csc i/ ;tlltre), et(l l/rr.i r' lri{-s rtol corrtplictl uitl, dt(tll.Ol3.)O.8 irr('lll'.\o .17rl (l ?(l/,9.11 /rrrs :t/.so t,.' ras<:rur.d pt ict an(l(1.'()r(.1 lq l() ihc purti. ;, th ('orrrrni.ssiorr,:r hacl liw'rl l/rc' rr'scr ur' lrncc'
ld' --\crttrcl; nqlg,the: unpuqrtt:cl order s -selo-. d€'; l'irlrr lterr.s ri',niLlttl ixtr k lo l/l(' Ir(r'(lr)'lll lo strrcllU ('a,)il)lLl r{rr'riirl ',,(l(', dt.0.3.()8.)()i8 ln(lRl'Air.l;.4 1 o.l 2O18 ris eI:,^(.) '. , ttit t it.11.i)1.:018 r/r('RP..Yo 8.ll(, f()1,9, l:11 JitliLtr,,inlJ ttr' ;t, t, ttlt: iitrtl cl,trtr rl Rcni Aloka dudhorio'.s (rr-se ll s,pra). i;.ri;1 I rr1.sr. corr-sidc'r !l'Le o!,tje,clion s r(isetl l)1t lh(',td dt.lt,t tl(rnL/ !)t irti r(,r I(l liu. -,1r/l'rtrrrI,:( orntrr.s.sloIrcr's llt'port clt.3O 0,.1r)1.5 t,,. | ,.,, i ulth. tl1.e rr,-cttter strk.,lltt irt uc c:ordonce utilh !LLa prou;it tt s t l l.l:r' 1\trliti<tn.4ct. I39.3.'1iri.s:,:crr':sc s/rrr11 /,lc,contpk:,tl l)LJ ) t.),'?())., a_fter heoing brtlr .sic7e.s.
1c). V itlt iht alxtut: dir.<,clrrrrr.s tlrc('tuil Rc i-srorr I , :il ( rr !-] tli.spos,:d oJ. 'tlo order c.s ro cosls.''
7 . Tlrr-rs,r',,hat all thrs Court has directcd Lh( Irr.r CoLtrl,ide orders catcd 16.O,1 .20 l9 in C.ll.P. No.6973 rl -1O18 is to :rdhere to the carlier orciers oi this Cou-t ir-r C [i ) Nos 83 1 of 2018 and 3741 of 2018 and to folkw th-r )r-i rcrl)l('s laid dou,n bv tl're Apcx(,ot.rrt in Rani t\loke. Dudhoria (surpra) and thrr provisions of thc Partition /\ct, 18,:)3
,tt 1,,, -:t; 1,5, r:l )i) [ i,
!q-.w ...;:;: ''3',tt,i
auction? and
2 . I.f so, it shall be solrL in a'uctiott, on.lg unnrq t!rc fain.iLqmentbersor inpuL;Licatu:ti.oni.;-icltttlirtcjt1eneraL public:?
I (.k l' .'o -)'.1i,\ t,l 2t)ll
members or shollld beplLt inpr-rb1ic aL ctior. the trial Court. cl uh l-eepir-rg inmind the provisiors of Sr:ctlcns2 and 3 o1'thc Partition l\ctand tJ-rc prrncipl:s laid do'r'n br the Apex Court in RaniAloka Dudhoria (supra ,1e1l thar in view' of ap rlicatiorr filedb1' the plaintiff, resp:rde -rt No I hercin. boirg otre of Lhcs}'rarc )-roldcrs,161-' 21111;11erlo!'the proprrtl' amorlg tl-re lamrlyrnembersu'ould be belLefi:ia1to the share holCers and invieu' of the offer rlacle b" a s;hart: hoLdel to prtt cha.se the propcrtl',tl-re Court hils: Lo rptit-'tr excejlt to orler for sale amongthe family m:nlbe rs, at vaiuation so zrscertained. Even theclaim lfrer'ision petrlionerr tha I the sisters, respondentNos. 4 anC 5 l- e:rein, sold arua-r' tl-rcLr undivicledshares b1' wa1'ol regisl.ercdsalc deeds in his favour and alsoinfavour ofplrintifi. respondent No. t heretn,and therefore,the r shz,rtrs a€Lnnot again be rosc Id,u'as cottsidered and answt:red )J' lhe trial Court holdinll that even if thesale deeds rre exccur.t:d bl' respondent llos. 4 and 5 tn respectof their trndiridecl shares, it ri'c uld not craLlsc prcjudice to,he ctI'crl;herre holders ancl suchpend.ente lile sale shall be s rbj3ctto or-ltcomc ol the linal decree and even ,;uch lLndi'rideci
('/l ," \o ;t)1.\ t)/ :itl)
a--'ffi
\l:., i4#
r0
sl.rrires a.lienated. :n fa'.rour of revision petiiiorrrl and the plalntiff call be put to auctiol-I. EVen thc ottlci conieitticr.l r-ri t l-rr: rcvision petiii()ner ior putting pai-t oi thc sr-lrcciuic rl propertJ thatt is facinSi main highrvarv road irl 1lr.t biic aruct.inll and putting the oll'rer part of the prop.ert-r tlr:ir is factnq g|am pancha.l,'at ro ad, \,4 s rigl-rtli reje.ricd b-r-rh': t riir i C)ourt as it r.r,or.tlci clirninish tht' irrtrinsicvalr-Lr.- oir-i-tt cntirrr prope rt)r.
" 26. So for a.s the obiections of respond.entNc-,. 2 is cottce 'ned, the tlon'ble; I liglt Coun()rCer in(lRP ,No. 6978i :20I E rlrttetl I 6 04 2019, directed tlTis Courl to conslder theobjectiut:; ctJ respondenl No. 2 to the repoft oJ theAduocaLecommissionerdaled. 3A-07 2O 15. h this regard, it is releuantto stdte lhat, respon.denL No.2 in .fact did not.fiLe ang objectiontc the cofl'.mssl6v-svrcptttl' ralher'the respondenl. Nct 2has iiterlhis rtblection subscqut:ttl to I ltL order passed. bg this Court on 20-12'2017 andalso subsequent to the orders of this Court dated24 08'2018. If is alsoreLeuant to state thdt, bottl orders of this Courl uere set asldebg the Hon'bleHigh
F
tl
\ \
(ourl \L)t '()r)ct, !lt .)/lrc,ai'i)/t.s raised bq resp)naten lct. ?. ln the lir:;l<tltjtttr tn tlotttijt) Ol:'t_)llJ, LU(ls Ia the :flL'd tl.. Lt. tlreatltl rt's/rrrrtrlr 'rl i Y()./ ,', r I rrii .t),d eLt',-ll !11217 , '111:1,y1(r, J .sr (,re-s i,, iLtLrtut oli1 .sl)Orr.lr,,lls .\o. l rrrd pelittorer, the.-fcre,t,r ert t:atnn()l 1-lr' artrT rt'.sr,k: orl llr., -srrrrJ -sh(r,e.s lhis oitlectictrt tr,,c -s cls,'r rc,i:;ed bL1 r('sp()1.1(,rli Y r I ur itt:, 2, ol;.lectktns .filed ot 31.12..)t)19 The ttlt<tLtt srttrl ,tltjt< ltrt': i-s rrlr.sli ,:,r cal b.q lhis Couri in f/r.z di.s:r.r.s-Siorr tlrtrfu'r ltt/rr,, ._;lr1)/(i.
I 1. Insolal as l'rx:.itioi1 of rcserve/upset pric(, in terms ol Scctton(r ol tltc. I):rr-1 iliot'r.\ct is concerne(l, corrs de -tng thc l)rovisiols(il- :l)c l)ru Iition .<:I anc] the cler:isior. r.f tlr: Apcx Court in Rani Aloka Dudhoria (supra), t.1e trjal Court felt iL nccessarr to call lirr- the valuation of the sui: in ot.der to fix the re,sct r,,./rrpsr.t I)ricc :rnd onll. therr:alte:, Adr<;cate Comrnissr0rrCr' \'oLll(l be aPpointed. Thr-rs, lhr: trial Court havrng cor-r si,lercd all Llte objections of th,,, rc,vision petitione r a tcl lta\ ing follori ecl the earlit,r orrle.rs c,f this C'or::'t irr Lhr'(trr rl lir.r.ision Petitions and t te la.,r. larr.l dou n b.r thc Ape:r Cor-rrt in Rani Aloka Dudh.oria (supr.;t) has rightl-v allo,r'c.d the' peririon drrecting sale of piaint schcrllrlr' ..\ Pl-()l)( rt\ antor)g thc familt. nteln:rerr; dulr directinq thc ;>artics to submit valuation certific tte (lf the propert-' rur( sale deeds ol neighbouring propet tv in thc
t
ri
w . ":1ff4
('./i i, \i., i/11. , '1;): '
'-i'-. i
:
r.'icinitr,. The imp,,rgnr:d orrler docs not srLffer from ar-rv infit'mit'v wal-ranting interference by this Coult ur rilcr Arl,tr-:le 22.7 of the Consi[rtr-riion oi lndra
l)errding Miscellaneous Petitrr-rns. if an-v, shall stanci closed.
Sd/-c.PRAVEENKUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY/i
SECTION OFFICER
One Fair Copy to the Hon'bleSMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI (For Her Lordship Kind Perusal)
To,
11 LR COPIES
SP
NSs
HIGH COURT
DATED: 191(t912023
ORDER
cRP.No.301;i of 2019
? -a '--:
;
-<( :, i
.' :t
a-\) i:
(:J
I l'l
,/
CRP IS DISTVIISSED
6o
-t^<br>\p't$'
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order directing sale of schedule-A property among family members survives the challenge under Article 227.
Whether the trial Court complied with the Principles of Law laid down in Rani Aloka Dudhoria and the Partition Act, 1893.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial Court order dismissing the application for stay of auction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rani Aloka Dudhoria v. Goutam DudhoriaFollowed¶29
Rani Aloka Dudhoria v. Goutam Dudhoria
5 provisions across 3 enactments
P. Janardhan Rao
Pola Mohan Rao
M.G. Priyadarsini
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
