Dismissed

Jaasthi Gayathri Devi and another v. Smt. Jaasthi Sravani Madhavi and 8 Others

Telangana HC25 Jan 2024CRP/249/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order dismissing a petition for amendment in a partition suit. The High Court held there were no merits to interfere with the trial court's order, noting the petitioners knew the land extent but lacked knowledge about purchasers and could have raised the matter earlier with due diligence.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Jaasthi Gayathri Devi and another Vs Smt. Jaasthi Sravani… — Partition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITIO N NO: 249 OF 2022

¶7

Petition under Arricre 227 constitution of rndia aggrieved by the order dated 01.11.2021 in l.A. No. 112 of 2019 in os. No. 181 of 2071, on the iire of the court of the V Additional District Judge, at Karimnagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Jaasthi Gayathri Devi, Wo Late Sheshu Chakri Kumar, aged 52 years, resides at Gandhinagar, Hyderabad.

¶10

Jaasthi Ranadheer, S/o Late Sheshu Chakri Kumar, Aged 2g years, residino at Flat No.101, SVR Residency, Gandhi Nagar, Uppjl, HvaeraO'aO.

¶11

AND

¶12

...PETIT|ONERS

¶13

Smt. Jaasthi Sravani t\radhavi, W/o Siva Seetha Ramaiah, aged 5g years, C/o Pranathi-Neuro Super Speciatity Hospitat, Anlaiah Road, Ordole,-Fr'aii"?m^- District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶14

Smt Jaasthi Swarna Kumari, W/o Late Jaasthi Nageshwar Rao. Aqed g4 years, Occ. Retd. Government Servant, C/o prana"thi rueuro Suiei"Spe-cialty Hospital, Anjaiah Road, Ongole,^prakasam District, Andhra pradesh] '

¶15

3 lll#_"Ighar1.Re{oy, S/o Ram [9ggy, qnuo 64 years, R!/o Atgunur Viilage or .t htmmapur Mandal, presenfly at H.No.g_1_99/t , Kattarampui Karimnagiar, Telangana

¶16

Kallem Laxma Reddy, S/otate Kista Reddy, aged 69 years, R/o Dontalapally Village of Utnoor Mandal, Aditabad District (Died and his LRs. are Defendants 5 to 7)

¶17

Kallem Damodar Reddy, S/o Late Laxma Reddy, aged 41 years, Occ. Not known, Rl/o._Dontatapalty Viltage of Utnoor Uanijai,"AOilaOiO Ois'trici,^'-' Telangana Strate.

¶18

Kallem Rajender Reddy, Slo Ele Laxma Reddy. aged 38 years, Occ. Bank Employee, Ry!_ Dontalapa y Vi age of Utnoor ManZat, AdiiaGO'Oistri"t, Telangana State.

¶19

Kallem Santhosh Reddy, S/o Late Laxma Reddy, aged 36 years, Occ.Bank Employee, Rl/o. Dontalapally Village of Utnoor Mandat, Adilabad District, Telangana State. ...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Nerella Parashuram, S/o Saheb.., age. 65 years, Rl/o Cheerlavancha Village of Sircilla mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶21

Nerella Gouramma, W/o Parashuram, age. 60 years, R/o Cheerlavancha Village of Sircilla Mandal of Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶22

...PROPosEi REsPoNoENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶24

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 OS No.181 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Vft Additional District Judge at Karimnagar, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition.

¶25

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶26

Petition under V Rule 20 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Petitioner to effect service by way of publication in News paper upon the un_ served Respondent No. 8 and^g and pass

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner

¶28

: Sri D. Narendar Naik

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Sri Ravinder Reddy Singi Reddy

¶30

Counsel forthe Respondent No.3 : Sri^p. Giri Krishna

¶31

The Court made the following:

¶32

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶33

CTVIL REVISION PETITION NO.249 0F 2022

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

This revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated Ol.ll.2021 passed in I.A.No.I 72 of 20t9 in O.S.No. t8l of 20 13 by the V-Additional District Judge at Karimnagar, wherein the petition filed by the petitioners to implead the proposed defendants and to permit them to make consequcntial amendment, was dismissed.

¶36

Petitioners filed petition therein requesting the Court for impleadment of proposed defendants and also for consequential amendment. Suit is filed for partition and separate possession and also to declare two registered sale deecls cxecuted by respondents 7 arrd 2 in favour of respondents 3 and 4 as null and void. The property was purchased by the hr-rsband of petitioner No. 1 and defendant No.1 to an extent oi Ac.O.26 guntas in Sy.No.952 of Rampur locality of Karimnagar. Ar the timc of fiting of the suit, they have mentioned suit schedule as l2l0 Sq v:trds in Sy.No.952 instead of Ac.0.26 gurltas $'hich is covcrcd under Ex.A. 1. They have not mentioned the remaining cxte nt of land as they do not know the particulars and reccntl_r' thc-'camc to knog,

¶37

¶38

that by ignoring the petitioner and her son, the respondents have executed two sale deeds in favour of N.Gouramma and N. Parsharamulu on 15.02.2001 and the registered sale deed was created by respondents I and 2 in favour of the above said persons depriving their rights. As such, they prayed the Court for impleadment of proposed parties and for amendment of plaint.

¶39

Respondent No.3 therein filed counter denying the averments of petition, though petitioner/ plaintiff is well aware of thc contents o[ document and having knowledge about sale of remaining land, filed suit only for Ac.0. l0 guntas of landTherefore, she cannot seek amendment which are sold out by respondents about 12 years ago, who in turn have sold the land to third parties. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

¶40

Heard Sri D. Narender Naik, learned counsel for thc petitioncrs and Sri Ravinder Reddy Singi Reddy, learned counscl appearing lor respondents 1 and 2 and Sri P.Giri Krishna, learned counsel appearing [or respondent No.3.

¶41

Having regard to the contentions and the material placcd or.r record, it is seen that that though petitioners knew about thc extent of land, they do not have knowledge about purchasers. As

¶42

/--\

¶43

¶44

such, now they hled petition for amendment and to implead the parties. The document under Ex.A. I was for total extent of Ac.O.26 guntas whereas, petitioners herein admitted that land is I2I0 Sq yards. Order VI Rule 17 of CPC says that amendment can be permitted at any stage before commencement of trial. Even after commencement of trial, if the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial and can grant the relief whereas in the present case Ex.A. I was filed with the suit itselfAs such, it cannot be said that inspite of due diligence they have no knowledge about the extent of land under Ex.A.1. As such, Lhere are no grounds to interfere with the order of trial Court and there are no merits in this revision and the same is liablc to be dismissed.

¶45

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There

¶46

shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

Miscellaneous applications, i[ any, pending shall stand

¶48

closcd

¶49

Sd/- T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶50

//TRUE COPY//

¶51

SECTION^OFFICER

¶52

To, t. The V^{AdditionalDistrictJudge, at Karimnagar. (With records if any)} 2. one^{CC to Sri D. Narendar Naik, Advocate[oPUC]}

¶53

One^{CC to Sri Ravinder Reddy Singi Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]} 4 One^{CC to Sri P. Giri} Krishna,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

Two^{CD CoPies}

DWHw

HIGH COURT

OATED:,2510112024

( 'rt E S 1-,:i ,;. (' .j
(o l(.<br>v
1 5 t{ Afl 2[2{ a
')
-6
*
t
-rc

ORDER

CRP.No.249 of 2022

DISMISSING THE C.R.P

A.d") Y14t1'I

Jaasthi Gayathri Devi and another v. Smt. Jaasthi Sravani Madhavi and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaasthi Gayathri Devi and another v. Smt. Jaasthi Sravani Madhavi and 8 Others

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

Smt. P. Sita Maha Lakshmi Vs E.V Manohar Rao

NavatheHemalatha Vs K.Rukmini and 6others

Peddapyata Thirupathaiah Vs Moutam Ravi

Sri Akula Anantha Swamy Vs Sri Amit Kumar

The Municipality Vs Bonapally Venkata Badari Narayana Rao

Badavath Ramu Naik and another Vs Guguloth Ramulu