Dismissed

Kankanala Laxmi v. Koudagani Purnachander and 12 others

Telangana HC23 Jan 2024CRP/366/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Civil Revision Petition filed against the dismissal of an application seeking rejection of a plaint in a partition suit. The High Court held that the order of the trial court was not illegal.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, confirming the trial court's order dated 29.11.2022.

Kankanala Laxmi Vs Koudagani Purnachander and 12 others — Partition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAAAD

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 366 OF 2023

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia against the order dated 29.11.2022 passed in 1.A.No.795 of 2022 in O.S.No. 624 of 2O22 on lhe file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangoan.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kankanala Laxmi, Wo Ravinder Reddy, Aged about 49 years, occu. Housewife, Rl/o H.No . 6-83, KadipikondaViillage, Hanumakonda Mandal and District.

¶9

Karnali Rajasekhar reddy, being rep.by. GPA holder GuralaManjulavani W/o Mahender Reddy, Age.38years, Occ. Housewife, Rlio H.No. 2-9-70211, Shenanagar, HanumakondaOity/ Mandal and Dist. Telengana State vide Doc No.30121202

¶10

Katanguri Rupesh Reddy, being rep.by .GPA holder GuralaManjulavani W/o Mahender Reddy, Age 38years, Occ. Housewife, Fl/o H.No. 2-g-7O211 , Shenanagar, Hanumakonda city/ Mandaland Dist. Telengana State vide Doc No.3O13l2O22

¶11

Gurala Hinduja Reddy, being rep.by GPA holder GuralaManjulavani Wo Mahender Reddy, Age.38years, Occ. Housewife, Rtio H.No, 2-9-7O211, Shenanagar, Hanumakonda city/ Mandaland Dist. Telengana State vide Doc No.301112022

¶12

...Petitioners/Def. No.10 to 13

¶13

AND

¶14

Koudagani Purnachander, S/o. Srinivas, Aged about 31 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o Raghunathapally Village and Revenue Mandal of Jangaon Dist.

¶15

...RespondenUPlaintiff

¶16

Koudagani Srinivas, S/o Veeroji, aged about 56 years, Occu. Agriculture, F/o Raghunathpally Village and Revenue Mandal of Jangaon Disl.

¶17

Koudagani Sriujan Kumar, S/o Srinivas, aged about 32 years, Occu Pvt Employee, Rl/o Raghunathpally Village and Revenue Mandal of Jangaon Dist.

¶18

Koudagani Ramakanth, S/o Srinivas, aged about 27years, Occu . Agriculture, Fl/o Raghunathpally Village and Revenue Mandal of Jangaon Disl.

¶19

KoudaganiKranth Kumar, S/o Srinivas, aged about 24 Years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Raghunathpally Village and Revenue Mandal of Jangaon Dst.

¶20

¶21

¶22

Koudagani Anika, D/o Srinivas, aged about 22 Years, Occu. student, R/o Raghunathpally Village and Revenue Mandal of Jangaon Dist.

¶23

Koudagani Vijaya, W/o Srinivas, aged about 46Years, Occu. Hotrsewife,^Rl/o Raghunathpally Village and Revenue Mandal of Jangaon Dist.

¶24

ThummalapallyLilatha Bai, W/o Sonaji, aged about 55^years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Ogulapur village, Athmakur Mandal of Warangal Dist.

¶25

Bussari Padnra, W/o Mahender, Aged about 48Years, Occu. Agriculture,^Ryo Ratnagiri Village, Mulkanur Mandal of Hanumakonda Dist.

¶26

PadakantiVenkateshwarlu, S/o Rajaiah, aged about 50 Years, Occu. Business, Rl/o H.No. 15-4-331 , Papaiahpet, Swamy Vivekananda Road, Warangal City anc Dist.

¶27

1 1 . BaireddyNavya, D/o Bai reddyRajireddy, aged about 23^years, Occu. student, Rl/o H.No. 1-1'O, Peddapendyala Village, Dharmasagar Mandal, Hanumakonda Dist.

¶28

l2.Thasildhar, Raghunathapally Mandal and Jangaon Dist. (Respondent Nos. 2 to 12 are nol necessary parties to this petition)

¶29

...Respondents/Defendants

¶30

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶31

Petition under Se(ltion 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to grant stay of all proceeclings in OS 62412022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon ti I the disposal of the CRP.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitionerrs: SRI NARASIMHULU K.B

¶33

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GOPALA KRISHNA KALANIDHI

¶34

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

¶36

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CTVIL REVISION PETITION No.366 of 20.23

¶38

ORDER

¶39

Aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2022 in i.A.No.795 of 2022 in O.S.No.624 of 2022 passed by the Court of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate ol First C1ass, Jangaon, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶40

I.A.No.795 of 2022 is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking to reject the plaint filed by the respondent/ plaintiff stating that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and the relief claimed by the respondent/plaintiff is barred by limitation and the Court fees paid by him is insufficient. Hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected. He further submitted that the plaintiff in his plaint has categorically admitted that he. is aware of the Gift Settlement Deed, dated 14.06.2006, through which the transfer of the suit schedule property was made in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 6 and also about the registered sale deed dated O2.O7.2000 under which a transfer was made in favour of defendant No.7 and also about the third sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.8. The plaintiff who is well aware of all these transfers, who is also a party in a previous suit vide

¶41

¶42

s(.s,J t'. R. P.fi'o 366 of2023

¶43

O.S.No.38 of 2016, without contesting or preferring an appeal against the disposal of the said suit on 26.07.2017, has l-rled the present false suit by claiming to be in joint possession of the property which is already transferred to several individuals. He further submitted that the limitation to seek a declaration against the said sale deeds are also lapsed as the plaintiff knew about the documents. As such, prayed the Court to reject the plaint.

¶44

On the other hand, respondent filed counter denying the averments of the petition stating that the allegations made by the petitioners are not supported by any material as questions rais,:d by the petitioners are only subject matters which are triable in nature and they cannot be looked into while considering an application under Order VII Rule I 1 of CPC. He further submitted that^' the previous suit vide O.S.No.38 of :20 16 was not disposed of on merits since tfle parties of the suit are different. Now the present suit is within the limitation and there is certainly a cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit seeking pa-rtition against the defendants as they are having the right over the suit schedule

¶45

sKs,/ C. R.P.No.366 of2023

¶46

property, therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the I.A. After hearing on both sides, the trial Court dismissed the^petition.

¶47

Heard Sri K.B.Narasimhulu, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Gopala Krisha Kalanidhi, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is the defendant No.lO in the main suit and he also advised to depose on behalf of the petitioner Nos.2 to 4. The trial Court without looking into the merits, dismissed the petition, which is contrary to the established principles of law. According to the petitioners, respondent No.2 was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule properties along with some other properties and he deliver the properties in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 7 vide registered gift settlement deed, subsequent to the gift settlement deed. Respondent Nos.3 ald 7 impounded their narnes in the revenue records though they have knowledge about the said gift settlement deed they can be filed and respondent No.1O purchased the property from respondent Nos.3 and 7 and impounded the property in revenue records and the respondent No.10 sold away the suit schedule property to this petitioner Nos.2 to 4 under the valid

¶49

¶50

¶51

sl(s.J {l R P. tYo.366 o/2023

¶52

registered saie deed. Previously, the suit $'as filed vide O.S.No.3B of 2016 for the partition of properties. It is the replica of the s,ame. Respondent Nos.l and 4 took steps for Iiling of O.S.No.3S of 2016 even after filing of O.S.No.3B of 2016. As such, the plaint itself is liable to be rejected as there is no caLise of for filing of suit and it is also barred by limitation.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no cause of action for filing the suit and it is barred by limitation and the registration of sale deed itself is in the knowledge of the persons and gift deed also registered in the year. 2006. Therefore, it is barred by limitation and there is no property available for partition. Therefore, prayed the Court to allou' the petition by rejecting the plaint.

¶54

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that this is not the stage to^look into^{the merits} of the case. While considering the application under^Order VII Rule 11, the Court has to see the averments of the plaint only and they have clearly mentioned the^cause of action in the plaint and limifation is mixed question of fact and law. It

¶55

s(.t-/ C.R.P.No.366 o/2023

¶56

cannot be decided at this stage, as such,^prayed the Court^to dismiss the petition.

¶57

B. Having regard to th€ rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, the point for consideration is whether the O.S.No.624 of 2022 is liable to be rejected. As seen from the record, the plaintiff is the son of defendant No.1 and brother of defendant Nos.2 to 5 and the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of l=t wife of the plaint and defendantnos.4 and 5 are the children of defendant No.1 and defendant No.6. Defendant Nos.7 and 8 are the sisters of defendant No.1 they are joint family.

¶58

According to the plaintiff, the property is ancestors' property which was transferred by the defendants among themselves denying the right of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, under the influence of defendant No.6, he executed conveyance in favour of defendants Nos.2 to 6, who again transferred the same to the defendant No.9 who in turn transferred it to defendant Nos.1 1 to 13. The plaintiff claims that he was not an executor: in any of these documents and all these documents were executed without consideration to

¶59

¶60

.sKs.J C.R l). No.366 o/2023

¶61

his share in rhe undivided joint family property. While considering the petition under Order VII Rule I I of CPC, the Court has to look into the averments ol the plaint nothing but averments in the plaint and documents filed by the plaintiff. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between plaintiff and defendants. According to the plaintiff, the cause of action arose on 20.06.2022 when he demanded for the partition of thi: properties for which the partition of the suit schedule property and to have the division of property.

¶62

He stated in the prayer that he is requesting the Court to pass prelim Lnary decree for partition declaring the plaintiff to I /6th share in the plaint schedule property and also for appointment ol aI Advocate Commissioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that document dated 20.06.2007 , he has to seek cancellation of the same within AS three years '*.hereas, the suit is frled in the year 2022, such, it is barred by limitation and a-lso no Court fee even paid for the c;mr:e1lation of the said deeds stating that it is an ancillary relief to the partition. Going through the said condition^q,hen the suit is filed for the partition, it cannot be said that the partition suit is barred by limitation and the suit

sK.t/ C.R.P.No.366 of2023

¶67

cannot be rejected in part. When there is an adequate relationship between the plaintiff and defendant and according to the plaintiff, defendant denied his share and it cannot reject the suit on the ground of cause of action. Further, for the relief for the cancellation of sale deed and registered gift deed, limitation and Court fee, the Court can decide the same during the Course of trial as a limitation is mixed question of fact and law. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and there are no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶68

1 i. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 29.11.2022 in I.A.No.795 of 2022 in O.S,No.624 of 2022 passed by the Court of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶69

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending il any,

¶70

shall stand closed.

¶71

SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \Y //TRUE COPY/i

¶72

SECTION OFFICER

¶73

To, 1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon.

¶74