Dismissed¶¶38

Burra Jagadeeshwar v. Burra Gopala Krishna

Telangana HC17 Oct 2025CRP/3141/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment of sisters/brothers-in-law/nephews in partition suit; Order I Rule 10 CPC 'any stage' principle versus eleven-year delay; Article 227 revision against dismissal of impleadment application; petitioner's own plea that father divided property equally in sisters' presence; sisters as witnesses not parties; marriage-settlement exclusion; Telangana HC, K. Lakshman, J., 17.10.2025; Burra Jagadeeshwar v. Burra Gopala Krishna; CRP dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Even according to the petitioner, his sisters have no right over the suit schedule property: his father divided and allotted equal shares over it to the petitioner and the respondent in the presence of the sisters. ¶¶31

Burra Jagadeeshwar Vs Burra Gopala Krishna — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead his sisters, brothers-in-law and nephews as parties to the partition suit should have been allowed, notwithstanding that it was filed eleven years after the 2013 suit and that, on the petitioner's own showing, his father had already divided the property equally between the petitioner and the respondent in the sisters' presence. +1 more

¶¶30

Court's answer

The legal position that an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment can be filed at any stage is undisputed, as laid down in the two decisions cited.

¶¶31

Ratio / Principle

¶¶31

Key takeaways

The impleadment application was filed eleven years after the 2013 suit, and the petitioner offered no explanation, much less a plausible explanation, for the abnormal delay.ratio¶¶30
Considering the delay and that the petitioner ought to examine his sisters as witnesses in support of his contention that the father effected an equal division between the petitioner and the respondent, the trial Court's dismissal of the application involved no error and the revision is liable to be dismissed.ratio¶¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition No. 3141 of 2025 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, High Court for the State of Telangana, decided 17.10.2025 by K. Lakshman, J. The petitioner's partition suit (old O.S.No.943 of 2013) against his brother was pending when he moved I.A.No.622 under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead his sisters, brothers-in-law and nephews, substituting a deceased issueless sister by her husband and another deceased sister by her four sons. The Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal dismissed the application (order dated 17.03.2025) on the footing that the proposed parties were not entitled to a share, having been given money and gold ornaments at their marriages. Upholding that order, the High Court held that although an impleadment application may be filed at any stage (Smt.Aswalhamma and Shidlingappa relied on), even according to the petitioner his sisters had no right over the suit schedule property, his father having divided it equally between the petitioner and the respondent in the sisters' presence, so that the sisters ought to be examined as witnesses rather than impleaded; additionally, the application came eleven years after the suit with no plausible explanation for the abnormal delay. Civil Revision Petition dismissed; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

¶1

I³¹⁶⁸ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

FRIDAY.THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

ClvlL REVISION PETITION NO: 3141 OF 2025

¶7

Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein the High Court may be pleased to set aside the ORDER PASSED BY THE ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE WARANGAL I.A. NO 622 OF 2025 IN OS.NO 687 OF 2022 Daled 17.03.2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Burra Jagadeeshwar, S/o lateShankaraiah Age 52 years Occu Pvt.Employee, R/o H.No 36-8-159, Dharmaram (V), Geesugonda Mandal, Warangal District .PETTTToNER(S)

¶10

AND'

¶11

1 Burra Gopala Krishna, S/o Late Shankaraiah Age 50 years Occu Tailor R/o H.No 7-3-323, Kaman Bazaar, Khammam District

¶12

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. DT.SATYANARAYANA PULLURU

¶14

Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSI]^\TAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION^No.3141O I²⁰²⁵

¶17

ORAL OR.DER:

¶18

Heard Mr.S.S atyanarayana, leamed counsel^{for .he petitioner.}

¶19

Petitioner herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.6li^{of 2022 (old} O.S.No.943 of 2013) on the file of the leamed Sen^{r r} Civil^Judge, Warangal, against the respondent, his brother, seekin 1^{partition and} separate possession of the suit schedule^properr .^{During the} pendency of the said suit, he has filed an applicatiot^grnder Order^I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908^{vicfui.A.No.622} of 2024 to implead Sri Nomula Venkateshwa'l .r, Smt.Gatla Bhagyamma, Smt.Madishetty Santhamma an<[ Smt.Guduru Leelamma and in the place of Smt.Eshwaramm I her sons Sri M.Madishetty Raja Gopal, Sri M.Chakradari, Sri Iv. )alagi and Sri Parameshwar, who are his sisters, brother-in-law an I nephews, as parties to the suit, contending that his father and n.r ther died. His deceased parents blessed with rwo sons and five dau 3hters. He has fiXg sisters. Out of five sisters, two sisters i.e . Smt.Nomula

¶20

¶21

Devakamma and Smt.Madishetty Eshwaramma died. Smt.Nomula Devakamma was issue less. In the place of Smt.Nomula Devakaurma, her husband has to be impleaded. The husband of Smt.Madishetty E,shwaramma also died. Therefore, on behalf of Smt.Madishetty Eshwaramma, her four sons have to be impleaded as parly defendants and their particulars are mentioned above.

¶22

It is further contended that at the time of institution of the suit, he has not shown them as parties to the suit since at the time of performance of their rnarriages his father provided enough cash, gold omaments and properties to them towards their share. There is no. claim over the subject property. After the death of his father, subject property devolves as interstate succession among^them. During the life time of his lather only in the^presence of all^his sisters, his father made the division of the subject^{property in}

¶23

between himself and the respondent allotting equal shares to^each. Therefore, he is intending to add his sisters, his brother-in-law^and nephews as parties to the suit.

¶24

¶25

¶26

The said application was opposed by^{the respo dent by filing} counter contending that there is a delay in^{filing the ; id application} and petitioner has filed the aforesaid application ' ith^{false and} baseless allegations. The pleadings are contradictory

¶27

Vide the impugned order dated 17.03.202:;^learned trial Court dismissed the said application holding lat the^said application is filed for impleadment of his sisters.^{trother-in-law} and nephew contending that they are not entitled^{f-c r a share in the} suit schedule property as they were sufficiently^give r^rnonitoryand valuable gold ornaments at the time of their marr^{r ges.} With^the aforesaid finding, the said application was dismissed

¶28

As discussed supra, petitioner has filed the tlrresaid suit in O.S.No.943 of 2013 in the year 2013 against the resp, ndent seeking partition and separate possession of the suit sched,t e property. In the affidavit filed in I.A.No.622 of 2O24 itself, he I rs specifically pleaded that his sisters has no share. His father divil d and allotted halfshare to the petitioner and halfshare to the respc rdent over the suit schedule property in the presence of their siste^s. Though^he

¶29

¶30

has f,rled the suit in the year 20i3, he has filed the present application only in the year 2024 to implead his sisters, brother-inlaw and nephervs as parties to the said suit. There is a delay of eleven (11) years. There is no explanation, much less the plausibte explanation from the petitioner for the said abnormal delay.

¶31

7 There is no (ispute with regard to the legal position that an application under the Order I Rule l0 of C.p.C. seeking impleadment can be filed at any stage and the said principle was also laid down in Smt.Aswalhamma v. Il.M.Vijayaraghavatand Shidlingappa Basawantappo Shipori v. Padmaba/. But in the present case, even according to the petitioner his sisters have no right over the suit schedule property. His father divided and allotted equal share over the suit schedule properfy to the petitioner and respondent in the presence of his sisters

¶32

The pleadings of the petitioner are contrary to the relief

¶33

sought by him the aforesaid I.A. According to him, his sisters have no share in the suit schedule property. Even then he is seeking to

¶34

I AIR I 999 Karnataka 2 I

¶35

, MAxrJ,,Ke/o2l jlt986

¶36

¶37

implead them as parties to the suit proceedings fil d by him for partition. In fact, petitioner has to examine his sistcr i as witnesses in the said suit in supporl of his contention that hi; lather divided thc subject properfy equally in favour of the 'etitioner and respondent in the presence oftheir sisters. As discus; d supra, there is a delay of I 1 years in filing the said I.A. On cons i leration of the said facts, learned trial Court dismissed the said app i :ation filed by the petitioner vide the impugned order. There is no^e r or. Therefore, present revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶38