Partly allowed

J. Rambai v. Smt. G.H Shiv Kumari

Telangana HC4 Oct 2024CRP/2218/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Civil Revision Petition setting aside the trial court's order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to partition suit properties. The court remanded the matter to consider the preliminary decree as modified by lower appellate courts in appeal and review proceedings regarding share entitlements.

What did the court decide?

The order appointing the Advocate Commissioner dated 12.06.2024 was set aside, and the matter remanded to the trial court with directions to appoint an Advocate Commissioner considering the modified s

J. Rambai Vs Smt. G.H Shiv Kumari — Partition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^26e71

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH^{DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶6

CIVIL REVISI^{ON PETITIO N NO:2218 0F 2024}

¶7

PetitionunderArticle22TotlheConstitutionoflndia'beingagg-rieved-by ,n" or#."'o;ffi^{;)il- Jr* ,- 2024 passed in. t.A. No 796 oI 2022 in o s.} No.374 of^{1994on t|.re titl oi erincipal'senior} _civil^{Judge, MedchalMalkaigiri} O[ti"t, Kushaiguda'^{Hyderabad,in the interestof justice'}

¶8

Between

¶9

J. Rambai,^{Wo Late Bansilaiji (Diedper LRs ResNo'3 to 9)}

¶10

Raiaram,^{S/o Late Bansilarli (Died per LRs ResNo 3 to 6)}

¶11

J.R. Pushpa^{Rai, Sio Late J'B Rajaram'age-d-about 41 vears Occ Private} " E;pr";;;:nroIi'rl.o s-t-ilErstivi, iiJ Fro"or'saiKrupa Apartments'^Gandhi ehirah, Patel^{Nagar.HYderabad,TS}

¶12

J.R. Raieshwari @^{K. Raieshwari D/o J B Jayaram aoed about 38 years'} occ. Housewife, R/"^{H.iffi-66i8,(aotn'rt' Mt6rt'o'unig'rDistrict' TS 509} 358.

¶13

J.R.^{Rakesh Rai, S/o LateJ B} Fqjaram'^{agedabout34 vearsOccBusiness'} Rt o 5-5'212l5teO^{r, ero?t;rlSai-'ilupaApartments' GhndhiBhawan' Patel} 'tiagJr, HyOerabad,^{Telangana 500 001 '}

¶14

J.R. Praveen^{Raj, S/o LateJ B Rajaram'aged. about 34 vears'Occ Student'} Rto 5-5-212t5taor'^{eriFi;ol s"i} [1'pJ^{A"partments'GandhiBhawan' Patel}

¶15

i.iagir,-Hyoerabad,^{Telangana 500 001}

¶16

Suryanarayana,^{S/o Late Bansilalii aged-about 44 ye-ars' Occ-. Business'R/o} Macha Bollaram,^{R R' District Telangana}

¶17

' ds8iA, Sr-A; i'Br. ^r.

¶18

Raieshwar^{Rao, S/o Late Bansilalji aged about 51 years'Occ Business'R/o} " frlli-i'r'Jso,'-Ei"ui"ro''F"".,ii;;,r"v: 7-br"tt',^ NCL-North^{Medchal Road'} Kompallv, Hvoeraoao-^{t +} i"df^{iia-tiLts ase/A'Sardar Bazar' Macha Bolaram'} riangirddov'oistrict^{Telangana (500010)'}

¶19

Kashinath,^{Sio Late Bansilalji qged about} +2y^?1"^{Occ Business'Rlo'1112-} 11, Beside^{Kapil Chit i,-"ailOi'p Tirumala Ap-artments'JanapriyaShelters'} Near Bollaram^{Railway SiJt'-o", "Si""'"Je1ab3!5oo010 (Old ad-dress658/4'} sardar Bazar,^{Hlacna eolrli;, hingireoav District. Telangana(5000'10)}

¶20

...Petitioner/^ResPondent

¶21

AND

¶22

1 Smt G H Shiv Kumari, Wo G.Harikishan, aged about 58 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H No 700/4, Deepmala 1 Fto;-C;ai C6fony +tfr ioaO, Dadar Bombay-400014

¶23

2 Smt. Manisha Prrthvirai Wo prithvirgi, aged about 52 years, Occ. Household, Rl o 2-7 -46. Macha Botiaram Rr;g; H";?;D,;fti^"'

¶24

3 Smt Ann-apurna, Wo Dasarathli aged about 59 years. Occ. Household R/o H No 14-2-36. Goshamahat Hyoeiaoio i"6"brnj-sob orz

¶25

4 Lakshmi Chandrasekhar, W/o Gourishankar (died per LR Res No 5 and 6)

¶26

5 sharad chandrasekhar Gaushar, s/o chandrasekhar Hariam Gaushar. Frat No 202 Anmot Residencv ptot.N^o.^.1.4, &; G;;;: S"ctor 34 B, Kharghar Panvel, Raigarh. Maharashtra-4 10 21O.

¶27

tt Sambukari Smitha, Wo Sambhukali Kantha Rao Santhosh, Rlo 14_ 'I 34, Pavan Residencv Near Bataji il-bl4-9;d;;t, V[i ;k;p;i;r, iu roan1, R.R.V Puram. Visakhapatnam, Ap 530 029.^-- '^-'-'

¶28

7 State Bank of Hyderabad, Rep by its Manager Secunderabad. (Not necessary party P10)

¶29

... Respondents/plaintiffs Defendant No. 2 to 4

¶30

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶31

Petition under sectron 151 0f cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be ql-e-ased to Stay a'furthe-r procggd,ngs in *re oplration of the order dated 12-062024 passed in r.A No 796 of 2022in o.s ruo.5i+ of 1994 on tne riretiFrincipar Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri Oistrrct, Kushaiguda, Hyderabad, in the interest of justice.

¶32

'1. Smt. G.H Shiv Kumari, Wo G.Harikishan, aqed about 5g years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H No .700iA, Deepm"rr.'r-Fioor p;rab6i;;. itihora, Dadar Bombay-4OOO14

¶33

2 Smt. Manisha prithviraj, wo prithviraj, aged about 52 years. occ. Househord, Rt o 2-z 46, M a ch a Botia ra m, n a n g i Het"dy-diitri"t.

¶34

9m! Annapurna Wio Da.s.qrathyi aged about 59 years. Occ. Household R/o H No 14-2-36. GoshamahatHyaeiaoio iJ;;s;;, 500 012.

¶35

...^petitioners/ R1 to R3

¶36

and

¶37

J. Rambai, Wo Late Bansilaiji (Died per LRs Res. No.3 to 9)

¶38

Rajaram, S/o Late Bansilaiji (Died per LRs Res. No.3 to 6)

¶39

3' J R Pushpa Rai. S/o Late J.B Rajaram, aged about 41 years occ. private Emptoyee, R/o H N o s-s zitsndililj'Fr"li,t,ii'xrupa Apartments, Gandhi Bhavan,^patel Nagar, HyOeraOia, iS

¶40

4 J.R. Raiesh^wati @^{K' Raleshwari'D/o J B Jayaramaoed about 38 vears} Occ H6usewife.^{R/" H.N?:;-;6i8,'X"Otnrrr, VtitaOrOnigarDistrict,TS 5Og} 358.

¶41

J.R. Rakesh^{Raj, S/o LateJ B} $qiaram,^{agedabout 34 vears Occ Business'} eh 5-5-212t5tsor, sro^{itoilS;'K'p;Apartments,G'andhiBhawan' Patel} i.ia-gar,-HyOerabad.^{Telangana 500 00 1'}

¶42

J.R. Praveen^{Raj, S/o Late J B^Rajaram,aged,about34 years'^OccStudent'} "^{"d^} i i_z1zl5t3o1, 3td Floor, sai krupa Apartments, Gandhi Bhawan,^Patel i.iagit.-Hyaerabad,^{Telangana 500 001}

¶43

Survanarayana,^{SioLa-te Bansilalji age4-about 44 ye-ars'Occ- Business'R/o} ' 6';siX, S;'d"t Baraar, Macha Bollaram' R'R District Telangana

¶44

S.RaieshwarRao,S/oLateBansilaljiaged-aboutSlVears.occ.Business,R/o nai No.66,^{Ernerald 'E""'aunil'A} -91qgl'^^{NCL-NorthMedchal Road'} klirrr'iirliivo;,iinaa^{u (otdad_ciress} 958/A,^{Sardar Bazar, Macha Bolaram,} iil'"rlur.J,io1l'oistrict^{Telangana (500010)'}

¶45

'Ti'['#,T;7:,ht?'??1?Hj8nq?of^{::;l#ffi :[#""s,!$ff iir"!;""ii#} N;r; B;ii;ril'Raitway^{stjtion,'secunderabad-sgg01 0 (old ad_dress 658/A,} Utr;ij;;;;.^{vr"r', bot""RangareddvDistrict Telangana (5000I0)}

¶46

.10. Lakshmi chandrasekhar, wo Gourishankar^{(died per LR Res. No 5 and6)}

¶47

llsharadChandrasekharGaushal,s/oChandrasekharHariamGaushal.Flat ' ' il;ioi ft;ol Residency Plot No'.14' owe Gaon'^{Sector 34 B' Kharghar} ii;"-r;i^{R;'g;th,MaharaShtra-41 o 21 o'}

¶48

l2.Sambukari^{Smitha,W/o SambhukariKantha Rao Santhosh'R/o14-} '11.^^{P^van Residencv, Near Balaji Public School,Vishakapatnam (Urban)'}

¶49

nli V Prirr,^{VisakhaPatnam'AP 530 029}

¶50

'13.State Bank of Hyderabad,^{Rep by its [Vlanager Secunderabad(Not necessary} partY P10).

¶51

(R 4 to 7 are^{not necessary partiesto this l'A)}

Respondents/

Respondents

IA NO.^{20F 2024}

PetitionunderSectionl5lofCPCprayingthatinthecircumstances stated^{in ine attidavit fited in support of the petition, the High Court maybe} ,i"r*a^{i" r""rte the interim orders passed in cRP No 2218 ot 2024 (NBA) Dt:} '19-07 -2024 in the interest of iustice

¶56

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:Sri R A Achuthanand}

¶57

Counsel^{for the Respondents: Nos lto 3: Bankatlal Mandhani}

¶58

CounselfortherespondentNos.S&6:M/s.UdayVirSinghLaur

¶59

The Court^{made the following: ORDER:-}

¶60

THE^{HON'BLESRIJUSTICEABHINANDKUMAR SHAVILI} C,R .P.No t8 0F 2024

¶61

ORDER:

¶62

This^{Gvil Revision Petition is filed aggrievedby the order} darcd^{12.06.2024passed in I.ANo.796 of 2022 in o.S.No.374 of} g9a by the Principal^{Senior Gvil Judge' Medchal-Malk'jgoi} District,^{at Kushaiguda'}

¶63

tleard^{Sri RAAchuthanand, leamed counsel appearing for} rhe petitioners,^{Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, leamed counsel appearing} ndent^{Nos.1 to 3 and }i//s-Uday Vir Singh Latr, leamed} pearing^{for respondentNos.5 and 6'}

¶64

:..:: \

¶65

is the^{case of the petitioners that the 1" respondent-} has filed O.S.No.374^{of t99+ for partition of A and B} ,i: properties into^{9 equal shares and allotmentof 1'/9'h share} laintiff arrd t/gb^{shareto defendant Nos.l.to 8. The trial} uitle order dated^{Z9.O+.2005decreed the suit by passing a} decree. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners-defendant t to 8 have filed AS.No.76 o{ 2005 and the Lower r;rrt uide order dated 25.01.2008 had partly allowed the

¶66

¶67

appeal and the share of the petitioners-defendants 2 to 4 and the plaintiff-1" respondent was modiflied from L/9,h share to 1/45,h share in item Nos.l, 3 k 4 of^.A,schedule properry. Aggrieved by rhe same, rhe 1., respondent_plainriff and defendant s 2 to 4 have filed I.ANo .171 of 2O0g seeking to review the decree and judgment passed in A.S.No.Z6 of 2005. The Lower Appellate Court uide order dated l1.Og.2)l5 allowed the said application by observing that wh,e deciding the appear a,otting the share in item No.4 of the 'A' schedule propert)., an error .was occurred on the ground that the same was sold and the parties have to share the sale proceeds erc., and as such rt is liable to be set aside. Thereafter, the plaintiff-l" respondent and respondents-defendants 2 to 4 have filed the present application in I.ANo.z9 6 of 2oz2before the triar Court seeking to appoint an Advocate_Commissioner to partirion the suit schedule 'A' properry be metes and bounds in terms of prelirriaary decree. The trial Cnun uide order 72.06.2024 ailowed, the said application by appointing an Advocate crmmissioner for

¶68

¶69

division of suit schedule ',\ properry in terms of preliminary decree with the aid of Mandal Surveyor. Hence, the present revision.

¶70

kamed counsel appearing for the peritioners had contended that the trial Crurt erred in ordering the application as rhe order passed by the trial C-ourr was modified by the Lower Appellate Coua by holding that the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 are entitled to l/45'h share in items 1,3 and 4 of 'A'schedule properties. However, in the review, that portion of the order i.e., allotment of item No.4 of 'A' schedule properq/ was deleted. Therefore, the tnal Clurt has erred in appointing the AdvocareCommissioner as rhe preliminary decree has dealt with 1,/9,h share and in the appeal, the Lovrer Appellate C-oun has ordered l/ 45n share each to the 1" respondent-plaintiff and petitioners-defendants 2 to 4 and later, in review, the Lower Appellate Court set aside that portion of the order in respect of allotment of share in item No.4 of 'A' schedule properq, as it was sold. Therefore, appropriate orrden be passed in the revision by setting aside the order dated 12.06.2024 passed in I.ANo.Z96 of 2022 in O.S.No.3Z4 of 1994

*-.-

\ \

and remand rhe^{matrer ro rhe trial court by appointing an} Advocate-commissioner^{by duiy taking into corsideration the fact} that the prelirninary^{decreeshould be executed at the time of final} decree by taking^{into consideration the orders passed bythe Lower} Appellate Court^{in the appealas wellas in the review'}

¶75

Leamed^{counsel appearing for the respondentshad} contended that^the Petitioners^{could have brought to the notice of} the Advocate^{Commissionerabout the modification of the} preliminary^{decree bytheLower AppellateCourt' Instead of doing} so, the petitionen^{have approachedthis C-ourt'Learnedcounsel} had further^{contendedthat the respondents have no objection if} the order passed^{by the trial Court in I'ANo'79 6 of 2022 n} O.S.No.374 of^{tgg+is set aside.}

¶76

Flavrng^{consideredthe rival submissions made by the leamed} counsel on^{either side, this Court is of the view that ends of justice} would be met if^{this Gvil RevisionPetition is disposed of by} setting aside^{the order dated 12.06'2024in I'ANo'796 of 2022 n} O.S.No.374 of^{t9g+ and the matter is remandedto the trial Court}

¶77

)

¶78

for passing appropriate orders by appointing an Advocate_ Commissioner to divide the suit schedule properry by metes and bounds by taking into coruideration the fact that the preliminary decree dated 29.04.2005 passed in O.S.No.374 of 1994 was modified by the Lower Appellate Coun in AS,No.Z6 of 2005, dated2s.ot-2008 and arso the review order dated 11.0g.2015 passed in I.ANo.1ZI of 2OOB in AS.No.Z6 of 2005, after hearing all the affected parties. However, since the suit pertains to l994,the trial Coun is directed to dispose of I.A for passing final decree proceedings as expeditiously as possible.

¶79

Accordingly, the Gvil Revision petition is disposed of. No

¶80

costs.

¶81

Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending shall stand closedi

¶82

Sd/- A.V.S. P AD ASSISTANT REGIS RAR //TRUE COPY// r\AJ i-* SECTION OFFICER

¶83

To, .1. The.Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Kushaiguda, Hyderabad,

¶84

.1. One CC to Sri. R.A. Achuthanand Advocate [OPUC]

¶85

One CC to SRl. Bankatlat Mandhani Advocat6 tOpU'Cl 3 One C.C. to M/s Uday Vir Singh Laur, Advoiate (CipUC). 4. Two CD Copies

VGS/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:0411012024

!.)
..,.'
2 li l-ji. :l1l

¶92

ORDER

¶93

CRP.No.2218 of 2024

¶94

CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISPOSED OF.

¶95

J. Rambai v. Smt. G.H Shiv Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. Rambai v. Smt. G.H Shiv Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Shah Jalaluddin Quadri Vs L.Kishan

Vpr Constructions Vs Dr.S. Sudheer Kumar The Registrar

Narendra Agrawal Vs Dr K. Anand Kumar and 2 Others

V.Balraj Vs R.Mallesh

S Chandra Gopal Vs Sri Aravind Kumar IAS and another

Pagidipalli Nageshwara Rao Vs Smt. Rema Rajeshwari