Venishetty Jagannatham, Vs Venishetty Srinivas

¶1

132'17 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3586 OF 2024

¶7

Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia assailing the order dated 06-08-2024 passed in LA.No.226 o'f 2024 in O.S.No.51 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Nizamabad. Between:

¶8

Venishetty Jagannatham, S/o. Late Venishetty Venkatesham, Age: 61^years, Occ: Business, Rl/o. H.No.1-5-67111O11, New Maruthi Nagar, Road^no.3, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

...Petitioner/Petitioner/Plai ntiff

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . Venishetty Srinivas, S/o. Late Venishetty Venkatesham, Age 42^{years, Occ:} Business, R/o. H.No.2-2-101, BhagwanGally, Kasba Gally, Nizamabad.

¶12

1. Venishetty Krishnaveni, Wo. Venishetty Srinivas, Age:39^years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.2-2-101 , Bhagwan Gaily, Kasba Gaily, Nizamabad. ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

¶13

K.Shobha, Wo. Late K. Srinivas, Age: 60 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Kanteshwar Appartment, Opp. To Mukka Ayodhya school, Gupanpally, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad.

¶14

Ch.Padma, W/o. tvlallikarjun, Age:58^years, Occ: Housewife, C/o. Crane Vakkapodi, Devi Road, Nizamabad.

¶15

R.Lalitha, Wo. Nagabhushanam, Age: 55 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. BSNL back office and Swagath Hotel back side, Chandranagar, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Proposed Defendants

¶16

lA NO:^'l OF 2024

¶17

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 O.S.No.51 of 2016 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, at Nizamabad till disposal of this civil revision^petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Padala Pravin Kumar

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondents: Sri G. Akul Reddy, representing Sri G. Anandam

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

l I I

a

/,

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶25

C.R.P.No.3 86 oJ 2024

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed assailing the^order dated 06.08.2024 in I.A.No.226 of^{2024 in O.S.No.51of 2016 on the} file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, at^Nizamabad.

¶28

Heard Sri Padala Pravin Kumar, learned counsel for the^revision petitioner and Sri G. Akul Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri G. Anandam, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶29

The relevant facts in brief are that, the^revision petitioner/plaintiff had filed the suit seeking partition of a house property. The suit schedule property originally belongs to the father of the revision^petitioner and respondent^{No.1/defendantNo.1. As} per the revision petitioner, during the life time of their father, on 27.O7.2007 in the^presence of elders a Faisal^{Nama was prepared,} wherein the suit schedule^property has been^{given equally to him} and his brother/respondent No.1. Though the^{suit scheduleproperty} and other^properties were^partitioned, they are in^{joint possession} and enjoyment of the house^{property. However,} after^{the death of} their father, as the respondent No.1 continued the^{possession, the} petitioner/plaintiff filed suit without showing the sisters respondent Nos.3 to S/proposed defendants, who are the siblings of the^revision ,petitioner^{and respondentNo.1 as the suit claim is based on the}

I

-l : 5 I

l

2

I

Faisal Nama alone. However, claiming that as the partition of the suit schedule property was in the presence of the sisters, who are otherwise entitled for a share, would be proper parties, an application was filed under Order I Rule 10 (2) CpC for their impleadment.

¶36

The trial Court observing that the entire suit was centered on Faisal Nama and that no interest has been granted to respondent Nos.3 to S/proposed defendants, held that they are not proper and necessary parties to the suit, dismissed the petition. That order came to be challenged in the present revision petition.

¶37

Learned counser for the revision petitioner wourd submit that proposed parties are the sisters and as the property remained unpartitioned between the revision petitioner and respondent No.1 basing on Faisal Nama, the presence of sisters would be proper to conclude the issue and to avoid any future litigation. Further asserted that the respondents/proposed defendant Nos.3 to 5 are not craiming right over the property. By considering their submissions, in pragmatic view the Court below ought to have impleaded the proposed parties in the suit. Thus, to rectify the error, prayed for interference.

¶38

6' Learned counser for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 wourd submit that the revision petitioner/praintiff is craiming right over the property basing on Faisal Nama. A defence has been set out in the written

) )

i

3

I

statement that^{the property was sold by their father in favour of} respondent^{No.1 and his wife i'e' respondent No'2' Further'he has} disputed^{the FaisalNama and it is a forgeddocument'Howsoever' as} the dispute^{is betweenthe revisionpetitioner and respondentNos' 1} and 2 impleadment^{of sisters i'e' respondentNos'3 to 5 wouldbe} unnecessary^{and the trial Courtrightly consideredthe facts and} passed the impugned^{order that they are not proper and necessary} parties. Thus,^{prayed for dismissal of the petition'}

¶44

I have^{perusedthe material availableon record'}

¶45

The facts that^{the suit schedulepropeltybelongs to the father} of revision^{petitloner/plaintiff and respondent No' 1/defendantand} proposed parties/respondent^{Nos'3 to 5 is undisputed fact' The} revision^{petitioner is claiming exclusive interest over the property} basing on^{FaisalNama. On the other hand, respondent Nos'1 and 2} are claiming^{title over the suit scheduleproperty basingon the sale} Faisal Nama^{proposed by the revision} deed and denying^the petitioner/blaintiff.

¶46

It is clear by^{the pleadingsthat the execution of Faisal Namais} in dispute and^{also the sale proposed by the respondent Nos'1 and 2'} If the claim of^{the revisionpetitioner and respondent Nos'1 and 2/} defendant^{Nos.1and 2 fails, the intestate successionwould be the} ,option.^{Insuch case and along with sons' the proposed}

I I

I

."rd

.-..-.-.!|r'...-..aal-rb

¶51

4

¶52

I

¶53

parties/respondent Nos.3 to 5 would have rights and intent over the I,^ property. In this view, subject to the proof of revision petitioners case oF execution of Faisal Nama by his father and the defences raised by the respondent No.l/defendant No.1, the proposed parties wourd be proper parties for adjudication of the suit For partition. That being the position, the triar court ought to have positivery considered the application and extend an opportunity to the proposed parties to place their claims, in the interest of justice.

¶54

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside by allowing the proposed parties/respondent Nos.3 to 5 on to record as defendant Nos.3 to 5. Accordingly, the I.A.No.226 of 2024 on the file of the principal Senior Civil Judge, at Nizamabad stands allowed.

¶55