Dismissed

Antharam Rukkamma (Died) and another v. Antharam Narsimlu and 26 others

Telangana HC22 Jan 2024CRP/534/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the trial court's refusal to allow amendment of a suit plaint to add partition relief. Court held amendment was not maintainable post-evidence closure due to excessive delay and lack of diligence.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed confirming trial court order. No order as to costs.

Antharam Rukkamma (Died) and another Vs Antharam Narsimlu and 26… — Partition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

IMONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

,..'I

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 534 OF 2023

¶7

Petition under Atticle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, Aggrieved by the order dated. 8-2-2023 passed in r.A.No. 1Bs ot 2023 in o.s.No. 1-68 of zods on the file of court of the senior civir Judge, at chevela, Ranga Reddy District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Antharam Rukkamma died per LR

¶10

Smt. Antharam Sabitha @ Buran Sabitha, D/o late Antharam Jangaiah, W/o p:ur_ap.an1a1O_am, Aged^-bout 44 yea$, Occ: House wife, R/o "ff f.fo iZ_ 124121D, Sai Ram Nagar cotony, Upfiat, Hyderabad

¶11

...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

¶12

AND

¶13

'1- Antharam Narsimtu, Slo la-tg t {I,."i..n Aged about 38 years, Occ: Agrl., R/o Mudimyal (V) Cheve a (tvt) R. R. District^-

¶14

Antharam Krishnaiah, S/o.latefiukkaiah aged about 2g years, Occ: Agrl., Ryo Mudimyal (V) Chevetta (M) R. R. District^-

¶15

Smt. Antharam Batamma,.W/o late.A. Rukkaiah aged about 65 years, Occ: Agriculture Ryo Mudimyat (V) Chevelta (M) R. R. Dislrict

¶16

Smt. Buran Yadamma (died)

¶17

Smtr B. Laxmamma, W/o Chandraiah Aged about 60 years, Occ: Agriculture Rio Mudimyala (V) Chevetta (M) R. R. Diatrict

¶18

Gollu Appa Rao, S/o Late Paidaiah Aged about 69 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o H. No. 13-6-432/3, Srinivasa Nagar, Hyderabad

¶19

lvlohammed Naseeruddin Khan, S/o Late eutub yar Jung, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Business R/o H. No. 10- 3-304, Humayunnagar,-Hydlrabad

¶20

L Smt. Baderunnisa Begum, W/o Mohd. N. Khan Aged about 50 years, Occ Housewife Rio H. No. 10- 3- 304, Humayunnagar, Hfoerabad

¶21

Syed Basheeruddin, S/o late Syed Riyazuddin Aged about 66 years, Occ: Business Rl/o H. No. 8- 2- 2681111618, Basheer Vili-a, Banjara Hi 6, Ro;d No. 3, Hyderabad

¶22

Sabir Lutfuddin Khan, S/o late Mohd. Sira.luddin Khan. Aged about 36 years, Occ Business R/o H. No. 8-2-6i111O, Road No.1 1 , Banjar; Hills, Hydera-bad

¶23

ffi '.p,

¶24

1 1. Mrs. Patima Khan, W/o Mohd_ Sikandar Aged about 40 years, Occ. Housewife Rt/o Flat No. 3034, Hidden Treasuie Apartments, S"."jiguO", Hyderabad

¶25

1 2. Gone Harikiihan- Reddy, S49 !a!g Narayana Reddy Aged about 60 years, Occ Agriculture Ryo Mudimyata (V) Cheveild (M) R. R. bist"rict

¶26

Smt. Gone Anuradha @ Anjamma, Wo G. Harikrishna Reddy, Aged about 54 pap, ^Qccl Housewife, R/o Mudimyata Viflage, Chevettj'ivta""Aif, i"igj Reddy Diskict.

¶27

14.Mr. Mohammed Aziz Hulqain, S/o late Dr. Mohammed Ehaan, Aged about 59 y9ars, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.8-2-26UN4\B, Road No.3, e"Jr-nif[, Hyderabad

¶28

Mrs. Nazeerunnisa Begum, W/o Shahid Khan, Aqed about 70 years, Occ: 1: Housewife, R:/o H.No. 10-3-304/A, Humayunnagar,^-Hyderabad

¶29

ffi

¶30

16.Mr. Hassan Noorduddin Khan, S/o Shahid Khan, Aged about 47 years, Occ: Business, R:/o H. No. 1O-3-304/A, Humayunnagar, UiOeraOat

¶31

17.Mr. Abdul Rahman Khan, S/o Shahid Khan, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, R:/o H.No. 10-3-304/4, Humayunnagar, fiyJerabad

¶32

Mrs- Khursheedunnisa Begum @ Khaderunnissa Begum, Wo Dr. S.A.H. KOaO. 5:1yl::9.g9_ becunoerabad:b-?r-t^{55 years,O-cc: Housewife, nlo-Fr ru,i.2r s, cr.k6;}

¶33

Mr. 4_u]fekhar Ali, S/o Mir.Mahboob 4li, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Business, R:/o H.No.8-1-346/4,/36, Shaikpet, Sabza iotony, Hyderabad_

¶34

20.Sri GolS Ja_nga Reddy, S/o. late_Gone Narayana Reddy, Aged about 34 years, Occ: AgJiculture, R/o H.No: 2-4t, Mudimyala Vittage, bndvetfa l,li;Oif , Ranga Reddy District.

¶35

Smt. Leena Jain, Wio Vimal Gandhi Aged about 35 years, Ocr: Housewife, R/o H. No_ 12-2-11Al2lB, Nanal Nagar, Mehdipatnam, l{ydeiabad.

¶36

22.Mr. Mohammed Jahanoe€r,. ^Slo^{lr,!9lr9.mmet Janimiya,Aged about 54 years,}

¶37

occ: Business, R/o H.Nlo. 12-2-t16t1t1tA,- p;J;;;6hr"Nug"i, R"rhi iti;ti, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.

¶38

Rr/o Sri, Vimal Gandhi, H.No. 12-2-t18t2tB. S/o Motilal. Nanat Nagar, G.andhi,- Meloipainam, Aged about 39 iy'a-Jairi* years, Occ: Business,^""*''.-''

¶39

Mr Na^sir Ali Mohiuddin, Slo ^S!aif.p9!91Ati Mohiuddin, Aged about 36 years, il 9cc:^{8r,,!iness, Rl/o H.No. 8_1_346.t1111tA,SaOza} cofbn!, eehinO Reiiin; Mart, Tolichowki, Golconda, Hyderabad,

¶40

Mr. Mohiuddin Ati Arbab, S/o^Slre!49tflAti Mohiuddin, Aged about 20 years, 9cc:^{Business, Rt/o H.No.8-1-346t1111tA, SaOza} coibni, Aenind Reiiin; Mart, Tolichowki, Golconda, Hyderabad.

¶41

Mr. Mohammed Azher Ahmed, S/o late Mohamrned Muneer Uddin, Aged 1ryrt^{59. years, Occ: Busin€ss, Ryo H.No. 1z-2_tgOtBZ,} nVoOV,^'fldfii Colony, t,lehdipatnam, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad - SCTOOZA

¶42

27 Mr- Mir Ailaz Ali, Sio t,4ir Saylad Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 22-3-.922, Got Khabar.'i3esidA Fidak Compt'ex, O'a-Snifa, Cnainiinir, Yakutpura, Hyderabad_

¶43

(Respondent Nos. 4 to 12, 14 to 18, and 20 to 25, are not necessary iarties^{to thisC.R.Psince respondent No.4 died and rest remained} exparte)

¶44

.RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS^E

¶45

ffi

¶46

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶47

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^pleasedto Stay further^proceedings in O.S.No. 168 of 2005 on the^{file of court of Senior} Civil^judge, Chevalla, Ranga Reddy District.

¶48

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶49

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^pleasedto extend the interim stay^granted on 24.02.2023^{passedin l.A.No.1 of 2023in} C.R.P.No.534 of 2023^pending disposal of the Civil Revision^Petition.

¶50

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt M.V.S. SURESH KUMAR^REP SRI. ARAVALA SREENIVASA RAO

¶51

Counsel for the Respondent No.12 and 13: M/s l.^RAMESH

¶52

Counsel for the Respondent No.26 and 27: SRI^V.Y.SAINATH

¶53

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3:----

¶54

ffi

¶55

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶56

ffi

¶57

FeU:

¶58

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CTVIL REVISION PETITION N0.534 of 2o23

¶59

ORDER:

¶60

Aggrieved by the order dated O8.O2.2O23 in I.A.No.185 of 2023 in O.S.No. i68 of 2005 passed by the Court of leamed Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed

¶61

I.A.No.185 of 2023 is hled under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking to amend the plaint by including the relief of partition as consequence to the main relief of the declaration of title and separate possession of the suit schedule property. It is stated that t he petitioner/ plaintiff instituted the suit seeking for declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit schedule property against defendant Nos.l to 3. The petitioner/ plaintiff by name Smt. Rukamma was the wife of late Anantharam Jangaiah, n,ho was the brother of Anantharam Rukkaiah. Delendant Nos. 1 to 3 are sons of the said Rukkaiah. Petitioner/ plaintiff submitted that after the death of her husband, she received compensation amount which was given to Rukkaiah u,ho purchased the land to an extent of Ac.8.32 guntas in Sy.No.163 of Mudimyal Village of Chevella Mandal under registered sale deed document

¶62

¶63

.sK.s,J ('R I> \o 53.1 of20)J

¶64

No.l6O9 11977. In the said sale^{deed, the suit schedule} property was shown to be share^{ofthe petitioner and} remaining extent of Ac.6^{was shown to be share of Rukkaiah'} After the purchase of the^{said Rukkaiah and after his death,} defendalt Nos.1 to 3^{sharedthe crop yield with the plaintiff} till the year 2OO4 and^{thereaJter,the defendantsdenied the} title of the plaintiff^{over the suit schedule} Property'^{As such'} suit was instituted with^{relief of declarationof title and} recovery of possession.^{It is further submittedthat in the} office copy of the^{plaint,consequentialrelief of partitionwas} struck out due to^{over sight. The mistakecame to noticeof} the petitioner/plaintiff^{recently,as such, prayed the Courtto} allou, the petition.

¶65

On the other hand,^{respondents/defendant Nos'26 and} 27 filed their counter^{stating that plaintiff has right and share} over the suit schedule^{property' Thev further submitted that} the relief of^partition is^{time barred and the same is not} permissible under [aw.^{The nature of suit will change if the} amendment is^{permitted, as prayed for'As such, the} consequential relief as required^{under Rule 28 of TS Civil}

¶66

-!*.

¶67

¶68

.'KS,J C. R. P.No.534 of2023

¶69

Rules of Practice ald Circular Orders,^{1990 is not sought for} and prayed the Court to dismiss the^petition.

¶70

After hearing both sides, the trial Court^dismissedthe petition stating that the amendment will change the^{nature of} the suit.

¶71

Heard Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar,^{learned Senior} Counsel representing Sri Ararala Sreenivasa^{Rao, learned} counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri^{I.Ramesh,learned} counsel appearing for respondent Nos-¹² and^{13 and Sri V.Y.} Sainath, learned counsel appearing for respondent^Nos.26 and 27.

¶72

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though his office copy is there, consequential^relieffor partition in fair copy was not mentioned by over sight and the amendment will not change the nature of the suit, as^such, prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

¶73

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that partition never be a consequential relief of declaration suit and presently, the suit is at the stage of

¶74

¶75

s/(s.-/ C R.l'..'o 531 (r/ 20)3

¶76

arguments arld arguments also concluded. At this stage, it is not maintainable as per Order VI Rule 17 of CpC to amend the plaint when the trial is commenced.

¶77

As the suit is of the year 2OOS, at this stage, this petition is hied only to drag on the matter, as such, it is not maintainable and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

¶78

Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, the petition is filed under Order VI Rule 7 of CPC for amending the plaint by including the relief for partition as consequence to the main relief of the declaration of title and separate possession of the suit schedule property. As the suit is of the year 2O05 and the trial Court commenced in the year 2006, the plaintiff evidence was closed in the year 2019 and the defendants evidence was also closed in the year 2019 and the matter is posted for the j udgment on 22.12.2019 and it was reopened for further hearing and at that stage, the petition under Order I Rule lO u,as hled for impleading the purchaser and the sarne was allowed. Subsequently, the written statement of the purchaser was iiled and additional issues were settled on 09.OI.2023 and the

¶79

¶80

sKs./ C-R.P.No.534 of2023

¶81

matter is posted^{for additionalplaintiff'sevidencearrd the} plaintiff need evidence on^{the additional issue, as such, her} evidence is closed^{and it isposted for the defendants'} evidence. At that^{stage,he f-rled the petition under OrderVI} Rule 7 for amendment^{of the} Plaint.

¶82

lO. The contention^{of the plaintiff is that due to over sight'} inthefaircopy,hewasnotmentionedtheconsequentialrelief of the partition in the^{declaration suit. The suit is for the year} 2005. Now it is^{2023 and almost2O years He was not} recognized the mistake^{even at the timeof evidenceand at the} time of a-rguments,^{he noticed the same' Even he was not} noticed at the time^{of arguments ald it is posted for judgment} and the same is^{reopened and filed I'A for impleadmentof} subsequent purchaser^{even that time also it was not noticed} by the plaintiff.

¶83

I 1. Order VI Rule^{17 of the proviso says that before the} commencement of the^{trial. amendmentpetitionhas to be} filed.

¶84

t2. Further, learned counsel^{for the petitioner reliedupon} the decision of the^{Hontrle Supreme Court inthe case} between Go:nesh^{Prosad us} Rajeshutor Prasad^and

¶85

¶86

.sK.t./ C.R P.No 53.1 ol202J

¶87

othersl, wherein paragraph No.36 crause 5 to 7 of the order held as follows

¶88

",u. ..In dealing with.a praAer for amend.ment of pteadings, the Court 27oui1 i"iia'i iypZ, t""nnt"ot approacll and is ordinaitg required"to be liberal especiallg wh-ere the opposiie partA can be compensated bg costs.

¶89

ui. Were the amend.ment u_tould. enable.the Court to patn-pointedlg consider th.e d.ispute anitl,outd. aid in ren.rlpTing a more satisfactory ai"i"i"rr,' in""iroye, 1o, amendment shoutd. a. iUowela.^{--- -' - '" F'}

¶90

uti. Where the ame-nd.ment merelg sought to introduce an ad.ditionat or new ;;;;."; uithout introducing a time barred. "ou""' 'o1 o.tion, the amendment is liable to be allou_red. limttation. " "ren"^{oXel-.*piry oy} 13 In the present case, the suit of the year 20O5, the evidences of both sides were concluded in the year 2Ol9 and when the matter was posted for judgment, plaintiff filed a petition under Order I Rule 1O CpC to include the subsequent purchaser and the same was allowed. Later, additional issues were framed and the matter got posted for the evidence of defendant. At this stage, petitioner filed this petition, which shows that he is not at all diligent from last lg years. He has not noticed the same and is simply dragging the matter. Therefore, it cannot be said that due to oversight he was not

¶91

| 202i scc onlinc sc 256

¶92

¶93

.s/(tJ C. R. P.No.5^{31 .,f 2023}

¶94

filedpetitionforamendment,aSsuch,theabovejudgmentts not helpful to^{the petitioner'Therefore' there is no illegality in} the order of^{the trial Court and there are no meritsin the} petition and^{the same is liable to be dismissed'}

¶95

Accordingly,^{this Civil RevisionPetition is dismissed} confirming the^{order dated O8'02'2023in I'A'No'185 of 2023} in O.S.No.168^{of 2005 passedby the Court of learnedSenior} Civil Judge,^{Ranga Reddy District at Chevella' There shall be} no order^{as to costs.}

¶96

As a sequel,^{miscellaneous petitions, pending ifany'} shall stand^closed.

/TTRUE^COPY//

'ii'"iE?iil'eP[ffiTI

SECTIMOFFICER

pr gh

i?liEE["$,:ffifriff.:+:H'siffi"r''i*3r''"'"

"\V

ffi

,..'l ..

HIGH COURT

j:,-:dxr' -
li'"1ffiif i l
.ii{tr#s '
-iTlfft*irr '

DATED: 2210112024

ORDER

CRP.No.534 of 2023

,-t'.n,
lr"i:ri.' !
t f.iv:
1
(
q
ooJ 2 1 t''rAR 2024 .fu&.{ilrxlt4-,
.jil
,ffi,

* DE .s par cH9O
ttt"','
E#a,
.r:
{ i:,.:j.

¶115

DIMISSING THE CRP

¶116

\ -\t

Antharam Rukkamma (Died) and another v. Antharam Narsimlu and 26 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antharam Rukkamma (Died) and another v. Antharam Narsimlu and 26 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srinivas Vs T.Ravi Kanth Reddy and 85 Others

Dr.Subhalakshmi Atmaram Jaiswal Vs Mr.Rahul Asoorya and 3 others

Alla Ramchandram Vs Alla Lakshmikantham (Died)

M. Sudhakar Rao Vs v. Rajeshwar Reddy

Tamanampudi Ashok Kumar Reddy, Y Vs Dr. Bandaluppi Rajendra Srinivas

K.Gopal, Vs Kistagoni Santhosha