Dismissed

Gali Doddanna v. Gali Harshith

Telangana HC6 Oct 2025SA/328/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal against a confirmed preliminary partition decree over house property. The court refused to condone a 660-day filing delay, holding the reason insufficient, found no substantial question of law warranting interference with concurrent findings, and dismissed the appeal at admission.

What did the court decide?

Delay condonation petition dismissed and second appeal dismissed at admission, confirming the decree dated 13.07.2022 in A.S.No.34 of 2020; no order as to costs.

Gali Doddanna Vs Gali Harshith — Partition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

134421

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶6

lA NO: 1 OF 2024 IN/AND

¶7

SECOND APPEAL NO; 328 OF 2024

¶8

Appeal under section 100 of CPC r/w Order XLll Rule 1 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 1310712022 in A.S.No. 34 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Adilabad, preferred against the Judgment and decree dated. 30/08/2019 in O.S.No.8 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Gali Doddanna, s/o Late Sri Bhojanna, aged about 69 years, occ. Retired S.l. of Police, r/o H.No 7-7-16113, Bhuktapur locality, Adilabad, Diskict Adilabad.

¶11

...APPELLANT

¶12

AND

¶13

Gali Harshith, s/o Gali Santosh Kumar aged about 15 years, occ. student, Minor represented by his natural mother Gali Ramya @ Kavitha r/o Village and Mandal Boath, Near Bhagath Singh Statue, Post Boath, District Adilabad504304.

¶14

Gali Ramya @ Kavitha, Wo late Gali Santosh Kumar, aged about 40 years, occ. House hold, r/o Village and Mandal Boath, Near Bhagath Singh Statue, Post Boath, Diskict Adilabad-504304.

¶15

3 Nandula Padma, Wo Ravi, aged about 47 years, Occ. House hold, r/o H.No. 7-7 -16113, Bhuktapur, Locality, Adilabad, District Adilabad.

¶16

Gali Sai Priya, D/o Gali Dodanna, aged about 28 years, Occ. House hold, r/o Bhuktapur, Adilabad, District Adilabad, Presently residing at London. (Respondent No.4 is not necessary party in this S.A.)

...RESPONDENTS

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that n the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ther Hrgh Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 660 days in filing the Second Appeal the Judgment and Decree dated 13-07-2022 in A.S No.34 of t02O passed by the court of the Principal District Judge, Adrlabad.

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ( rcumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the Hrgh Corrr may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings rncluding the Execution proc r edings in O.S.No. g of 2015 dated. 30-8-2019 on the file of the Honourable ( ourt of Senior Civil Judge, at Adilabad, Pending disposal of main Second Appe I

¶23

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri S. Chandrasekhar

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: Sri M. Murati Mohan

¶25

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶27

I.A.No.1 of 2024 in/and SECOND APPEAL No.328 of²⁰²⁴

¶28

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶29

Heard Sri S. Chandra Sekhar, leamed counsel for the appellant^and Sri M. Murali Mohan, leamed counsel for^{respondentNos.} I^{and 2.} Perused the entire record.

¶30

This Second Appeal is arising from concurent^{findings in judgment} and decree dated 13.07.2022 in A.S.No.34 of^{2020 on the file of the} Principal District Judge, Adilabad,^{('FirstAppellate Court'),confirmingthe} judgment and decree dated 30.08.2019 in O.S.No.8 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Adilabad^{('trial Court'), whereinthe suit for} partitlon has been preliminarily decreed and the^{same is confirmed by the} First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by^{the saidconcurrentfindings,the} present Second Appeal is filed^{with the followingsubstantial questions of} law:

¶31

(1) Whethcr the^judgment of both the Courts below^{is perverse?}

¶32

(2) Whethcr the partition suit filed by the respondent^{Nos.l and 2,} rvithout impleading the wife of^late Gali^{Pochanna is bad and liableto} be dismissed for non-joinder of^{necessaryparty?}

¶33

(3) Whcther both the Courts below erred in deciding that^{the suit} schedulc property was co-parcenary^property of^{lateGaliBhojanna?}

¶34

¶35

RY.J IA I 2024 inland sA 328 2024

¶36

(4) Whcthcr both the Courts below crred in dcci ing that the respondont No. I is entitle a sharc in the suit schedulcd l) .)perty?

¶37

l.A.No. I ol-2()14 is flled to condone dclay of 6({ da1,s in liling ol the present Second Appeal.

¶38

Respondent Nos. I and 2 herein filed suit for parrrion and separate possession u,ith respect to the property consisting of hot:: r bcaring No.7-7l6113 situated at Bhuktapur, Adilabad, ('suit schedule )roperry,), which was originally owned and possessed by one Gali Bh<, rnna. Said Gali Bhojanna had two sons i.e., Gali Doddanna-appellan hcrein and Gali Pochanna (died). Gali Doddanna has one son and one r rughter i.e., Gali Santosh Kumar and Gali Sai Priya-respondent No.4 lr, rein. Said Gali Santobh Kumar died and is survived by his wife Gali I ulya-respondent No.2 and son Gali Harshith-respondent No.l herein. . ali Harshith and Gali Ramya filed suit against the father and sister of Gali rikanth, rvho are the appellant and respondent No.4 herein and also r 3ainst the legal representative of late Gali Pochanna i.e., Nandula padnlr r.espondent No.3 herein. In the said suit, respondent Nos. I and 2 examinr I p.W. I and got marked Exs.A- I to A-3 and there was no evidence on be r rlf of delendants and therefore, the said suit was decreed. The primary rer: rn for decreeing the suit is that as per Iix.A-3 the suit schedule property o gir-rally steurds in t

¶39

¶40

RY,J lA | _2024 inland sA 328 2024

¶41

the name of Gali Bhojanna and therefore,^{constitutesancestralproPerty-}

¶42

The suit was decreed dividing the same into two shares in between appellant and Gali Pochanna-father of respondent No.3^{and thereafter,} respondent No.l, appellant and respondent No.4 herein^{were given 1/3'd} share that fell into the share of the appellant.^Aggrieved by^{the said} judgment and decree of the trial Court, first appeal is preferred and the same was dismissed by the First Appellate^{Court. Aggrievedby the same,} the present Second Appeal is^preferred.

¶43

The Hon'ble Supreme Courl of lndia in^{Hemavathiv. V.} Hombegowdat held that High Courl can^{entertain a regularsecond appeal} purely on a 'substantial' question of law not even^{a question of law or a} question of fact. Further, as per the^judgment of this^{Court in Syed Abdul} Quddus^{v. K. Vijaya Laxmi2, the Apex Court in Gurdev Kaurv. Kakis} held that the High Courl sitting^{in Second Appeal cannot examinethe} evidence once again as^a third^{trial Courtand the power underSection 100} CPC is very limited and it^{can be exercisedonly where a substantial} question of law is raised and fell for consideration

¶44

'^{(zozs)s scc aaz}

¶45

'z2024^{SCc onlineTS 186}

¶46

' 1zooz1^r scc sao

i I I

RY.J lA-_ I _2024 iiland sA, 328 2024

¶51

The only reason cited for pref'erring the presen. Sccond Appeal IS that thc wife o1'[,ate Gali Pochanna has not been implcr 1ed as parti' in the present suit.^'l'o the specific question posed by thi;^('otrrt as to how prejudice is caused lbr not impleading the wif'e o1's.r d Gali Pochanna, when the legal representative of Gali Pochanna, ! ho is sole legal representative, is arraigned as def-endant No.3 (rcspondt r t No.3) in the suit There is no satisfactory answer forthcoming from thc I arncd counsel for the appellant.

¶52

l. It is asserled that there is error committed b1 t cth the^(lourts in holding that suit schedule propefty was coparcenar. propefty of Gali Bhojanna. When there is a concurrent findings of lct about the suit schedule property bcing coparcenary property of Gali^. rojanna and there is adequate representation of legal representatives o[^(:rli Pochanna, this Court under Section 100 of C.P.C. cannot deal with rl : said findings in Second Appeal as such there are no rnerits in the pres. rt Second Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶53

A I.A.No.1 of 2024 is filed to condone delay of 661 days in filing the \ Second Appeal and the reasons stated are that the daugl t rr o1- the appellant was going to London and he was busy sending her. 1, r1, preparations to send a daughter to l,ondon may take 30 days or little r ore, but ccrtainly

¶54

¶55

RY,J lA_1J024 inland sA 328 2024

¶56

not 660 days. Hence, the reason cited is unsustainable and does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay as per Section 5 ofthe Limitation Act, 1963.

¶57

In view of foregoing discussion, there are no merits to condone the delay or to entertain the Second Appeal.

¶58

10., In the result, the I.A.No. 1 of 2024 filed seeking to condone delay of 660 days is dismissed and the Second Appeal is also dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the^judgment and decree dated 13.07.2022 in

¶59

A.S.No.34 of 2020 on the fi le of the first appellate Court. There shall be no

¶60

order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

¶61

closedt

¶62

SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶63

//TRUE COPY//

¶64

SECTION OFFICER