Vilasagar Latha Vs Ravikumar Katikenapalli — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Vilasagar Latha Vs Ravikumar Katikenapalli — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; trial Court's objection sustained; liberty granted to the petitioner to file suit afresh with proper pleadings; miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the CRP stand dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint filed by the petitioner in SR O.S.No.269 of 2025 for partition and separate possession, based on registered sale deed No.4361 of 2022 dated 30.05.2022, was rightly returned by the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff paid no consideration and has no share in the suit schedule property. +1 more

Court's answer

The learned trial Court rightly returned the plaint filed by the petitioner on the aforesaid ground (the petitioner having failed to explain the alleged fraud even in the explanation accompanying the resubmitted suit).

Ratio / Principle

As per the recitals of the registered sale deed, Vendee No.1 (Ravi Kumar Katikanapally) paid 50% of the sale consideration and Vendee No.2 paid the balance 50%; the petitioner appears to be only a formal party.

Key takeaways

In the said sale deed there is no mention that the petitioner has 1/4th share in the suit schedule property.ratio¶46
Since the sale deed nowhere mentions the petitioner's 1/4th share, the learned trial Court rightly raised the aforesaid objection.ratio¶51
The objection raised by the learned trial Court and the order dated 04.07.2025 are reasoned and there is no error in them.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (K. Lakshman J., 18.07.2025) dismissed Civil Revision Petition No.2368 of 2025, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 04.07.2025 of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli in SR O.S.No.269 of 2025, whereby the plaint in a suit by Vilasagar Latha against Ravikumar Katikenapalli and Amirishetti Sathish for partition and separate possession, based on registered sale deed No.4361 of 2022 dated 30.05.2022, was returned as not maintainable. The Court held that the recitals of the sale deed show the sale consideration (stated in total as Rs.29,29,000/-) was paid by Vendee Nos.1 and 2 (each described as paying 50%), that the deed nowhere mentions the petitioner's claimed 1/4th share, and that the petitioner is only a formal/nominal party; the trial Court's objection was therefore rightly raised and sustained, the return of the plaint was reasoned and free of error, and the CRP was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh suit with proper pleadings; pending miscellaneous petitions stand dismissed.

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

CIVIL REVISION PETI TION NO: 2368 OF 2025

Petition under Article 227 of lhe constitution of India against the order dated 03.07.2025 Passed in sR.o.s.No.269 ot 2o2s on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli.

Between:

Vilasa^gar- Latha, wio late Kankaiah, Aged about 43 years. occ. Househord, Rio H.No.2-63l2, Kummarikunta Village, Julapalli Mandat,'peddapatfi Oistiici.^{- -'}

...PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

AND

Ravikumar Katikenapalli, S/o Lingaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Real Estate, Business, R/o H.No.2-39, Rangampaili, pedda[alri rown and District.

Amirishetti Sathish, Sio Mallesham, Aged about 45 years, occ. Real Estate Business, R:/o H.no.1-21lA, Rangampalli,^peddapalli Towh and Distriit.^-

...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under sectlon 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support,of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the i:roceedings pursuant Docket order d ated 3.07.202s passed in sR.o.s.No.269 of 202s on the file of the Hon'ble senior civil Judge, Peddapalli, allow the ctaim petition filed by the petitioner I plaintiff pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR

Counsel for the Respondents:

The Court made the following: ORDER

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.^LAKSHMAN

CIVIL REVISION PETIT^{ION No.2368 of 2o25} ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for^{the petitioner.}

This Civil Revision^{Petition is hled challerrging the} order dated O4.O7.2025 in^{SR O.S.No.269of 2025 on} the file of learned Senior Civil^{Judge,Peddapalli.}

The petitioner has hled^{suit against resllondents} for partition and separate^{possession of the suit} schedule property Lrasing on the^{registereds,ale deed} bearing No.4361 of 2022 dated^{3O.O5.2022.Learned} trial Court raised the following^objection:

"The registered sale deed relied^{bg the pktintiff} reueals that non-pagment of consideration^{bg the} plaintiff. Hence suit may be returned."

Learned counsel for the petitioner resubmitted bundle with the following explanation:

" Request to call on bench today to clarifg^{objection. "}

I(L,J C R. P. No 2368 of 2025

2

Vide Order dated 04.07.2022, the learned tria-l Court returned the said plaint on the following grounds

" Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

This suit is filed for partition basing on the registered sale deed 436 1 / 2022, dt. 30.05. 2022. "

The plaintiff herein is uendee No.3 and hauing joint possession along u.tith uendee No.1 and 2 utho are D1 and D2 to this Sulf. As such, she is hauing joint possession and register the suit.

After heaing, perusing the auerments of the plaint and sale deed in fauour of Plaintiff and D1 and D2 herein in uhich mentioned that Dl and D2 are hauing 100ok share ouer the schedule propertA i.e., suit schedule propertA As per tLrc document, the plaintiff herein is nominal partg and not paid ang mnsideration and hauing no share in the schedule propertg of the docuinent 4361/2022. Hence, joint possession and suit for'^{partitioncannotbe maintainobleand as per} document no share to the plainttff. Hence, ploint is retunted.and hauing no cause of oction to plaintiff to fi.le^{the suit.}

Hence, plaint is retunted as not maintainable."

KL.J C. R,P.No.l3f ,8 of 2025

3

Challenging the said order, petitioner .lk:d the present revision petition.

As discussed supra, the aforesaid suit is filed for partition and separate possession by the petrtioner basing on the registered sa_le deed bearing No.436 I 12022. In^paragraph No. 1 of the recitals of the said sale deed, it is mentioned as follows:

" The Vendee No.1 paid the sale consideration of Rs. 14,64,5OO/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Sirty Four Thousand Fiue Hundred onlg) through ()nline Transfer/ Cash, for his share of Sook to the uendor finn, and the Vendee No.2 paid the sale consideratitn of Rs.7,32,250/ (Rupees Seuen Lakh Thirty Two Thousand Ttuo Hundred and Fifty onlg) through Ctnline Transfer/ Cash, for his share of 25% to the uendor firtn, and the Verrdee No.2 paid the sale consideration of Rs.7,32,25O/ - (Rupees Seuen lakh Thirtg Ti:r,to Thousand Ttuo Hundred and Fifty onlg) through Cnline Transfer/ Cash, for his share of 25ok to the uendor fi.rm, in this uay the Vendees has paid the entire sole tortsideratiort amount of Rs.29,29,00O/ - (Rt pees Ttoenty Nine Lakhs Twentg Nine Thousand ontg) tt the uendor Finn. the receipt of which the uendor lirm, hereby adm its and acknou.tledges, the uendor fittn herebg sells. conueys, transfers and assigns unto the

I I

KL..,I C.R.P.No.2368 of 202.5

4

uendee all his ights, title^{interest, claim and demand} whatsoeuer in the 'SCHEDULE'^{mentioned propertg and} deliuers uacant possession^{and occupationand thereof} to the uendee to hold sources,^{piuileges,easements,} a.ppurtenances or anA other^{things hiddenin the dearth} or belonging to appurtenant^thereto."

7 . Thus, as per the recita-ls of the^{said sale deed, the} an Vendee No.2 i.e., Amirishetti^{Sathish has paid} arnount of^{Rs. 14,64,5OO1-towards sale consideration} r.e., SOoh of his share.^{VendeeNo.1 i.e., Ravi Kumar} Katikanapally has^paid an^{amount of Rs. 14,64,500/-,} i.e., 5O%o of the sale consideration.^{Thus, VendeeNo. I} had paid 5O%o of the sale^{consideration and Vendee} No.2 has paid balance^{SOohof the sale consideration. It} appears that the^petitioner is^{only forma-lparty. As} discussed supra, basing on^{the said registered sale} deed, petitioner has^{filed the aforesaid suit seeking} partition and separate^{possessionclaimingthat he is} entitled to I l4tn of the^{suit schedule property.}

In the said sale deed,^{there is no mentionthat the} petitioner has 1/4tr'^{of the share in the suit schedule}

KL,J C.R. P.l,lo 11368 of 2O25

5

I \

I I

property. Therefore, learned trial^{Court riglrtlyraised} the aforesaid objection.

g. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Vendee^No. 1 i.e., Sri^{Ravi Kumar} Katikanapally is the relative^{of the petitionerherein} and he has taken^25o/o of the^{sale considerationfrom} her and paid ir to the vendor^{i.e., M/s.VaishnaviAgro} Industries. Even then, he^{has not mentionedthe said} fact in the said sale^deed. Thus,^{he has play:d fraud in} collusion with the Vendee No.2,^{i.e., Amirishetti} Sathish. The said facts^{were not mentionedinthe} plaint filed by her. She has claimed only^I /4th^{of the} share basing on the said registered.sale^dee<I.

The petitioner has resubmitted^{thc suit on} O3.O7.2O25. Even in the^{explanation to the objection} raised by the trial Court, the^{petitioner has not} explained the said lact^{includingfraud pleLyr:d by the} Vendee No.1 in collusion^{with Vendee No.l2.As such,}

KL,J C R.P.No.236n of 2025

6

I

the learned trial Court has rightly returned the plaint filed by the petitioner herein on the aforesaid ground. Therefore, the objection raised by the learned trial Court and the order dated O4.O7.2025 is reasoned and there is no error in it.

In the light of the above discussion, the objection raised by the trial Court is sustained and the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file suit afresh with proper pleadings.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if aly, pending in the Civil Revision Petition sha-ll stand

dismissed.

\

//TRUE COPY//

SD/- K.AMMAJI
E TY REGISTRAR
SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli.

One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Advocate [OPUC]

Two CD Copies

SS/PSL

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 810712025

ORDER

oG 1FlE.:;;riI
a
o
j
)
O3 sEP M ,r
,l),?, ,A
l) Sl-r rC ,rf-0

CRP.No.2368 of 2025

DISMISSING THE C.R.P.

1