The High Court · 2025

Challagonda Sammakka (Died), Warangal Nalla Dayakar, S/o. Srinivas Reddy, Aged 45 years, R/o. C/o. Akkinaepally Premsag'ar, Bearing H.No. 20-64/2, Opp. Nataraj Theatre, Parkal. Pakala Sridhar Reddy, S/o. Sarotham Reddy, {get 35 years, Occ . Government Employee, R/o. Jadalpet Village, Chityal Mandal. State Bank of Hyderabad, Presently State Bank of lndia, Mulugu Branch, Mulugu. ... Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. M Madhava Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.2 Sri C.Mohan Prakash Counsel for the Respondent No.3 Smt. T Swetcha Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 Sri. Prabhakar Chikkudu The Court made the following: ORDER s THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CML R-EVISION PETITION No. 498 of 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrievr:d by the order dated 19.12.2023 passed in I.A.No.20 of 2023 in O.S.No.27 of 2022 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mulugu

2. Heard both sides. Perused the record

3. I.A.No.20 of 2023 was filed under Order 1 Rule 1O r/w. 151 of C.P.C by petitioner/plaintiff to implead proposed respondent Nos.S to 7 as defendant Ngs.S to 7. The trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by t re same, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred the present civil revision petition

4. Learned counsel for petitioner stated thzrt there is an order in I.A.No.126 of 2013 in O.S.No.B6 cf 2013 dated

12.O2.2OI3 granting ad-interim injunction and when the said order is in force, defendants alienated the prc,perty and the transferee is necessary party to the suit. The trial Court ought- to have allowed the application to avoid mulr.iplicity of the litigation. Alienations are made only to frustrat: the efforts of -..'- 2 the plaintiff. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

5. Petitioner is plaintiff in the suit and she filed O.S.No.27 of 2022 (Old O.S.No.86 of 2OI3l for partition of the properties and to pass preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiff is entitled for 7+ share and also to pass preliminary decree by appointing Advocate Commissioner. During the pendency of the proceedings, she frled I.A. for impleading the proposed respondent Nos.S to 7. The plaint was frled in February, 2013. During the pendency of the proceedings, implead petition was filed on 25.01.2023. In the affidavit, it is stated that recently, she came to know that her father alienated the suit schedule property in favour of Nalla Dayakar to an extent of rA,c.2.18 guntas in Sy.No.429/A and Pakala Sridhar Reddy vide Doc.No.29O/20i3 to an extent of 426.00 Sq.yards. Respondent No.6 mortgaged the property vide document No.481/2015 for Rs.5,00,000/-. The properties alienated by deceased defendantno.l are part and parcel of the suit scheduler - properties, as such they are necessary parties to the suit and 3 thus requested the Court to implead the propos,:d respondents as proper and necessary parties to the suit.

6. In a counter filed by defendant No.3, she stated that they do not know about the sale of properties and pendency of the I.A and defendant No.1 clearly stated the same in the written statement in the year 2013. Therefore, the corrtention of the implead petitioner that she recently came to know about the facts is not proper. The implead petition is filed after 1O years only to drag on the proceedings. Therefore, requt:sted the Court to dismiss the petition

7. In a counter frled by defendant Nos.S and 6 stated the same as stated by defendant No.3. The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides, dismissed the appli:ation and it is observed that main suit was frled in the year 2C 13 and during the pendency of the suit, I.A.No.126 of 2013 is filed restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedult: properQr from third parties but no interim order was passed by the Court and there is no continuation of docket of the said I.A after

17.O3.2O17. In the written statement filed by defendant No. 1, 4 he gifted Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.429/A. guntas to defendant No.3 and he sold away Ac.O2.1B guntas in Sy.No.429/A. The alleged sale tralsactions which have been mentioned in the petition with regard to document Nos.186/2013 and 29O12013 were a,lready canre on record in the year 2OI3 and there is no interim injunction subsisting as stated by the petitioner. If the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff, then it would be automatically abide on the alleged vendors of defendant No.1 i.e., proposed respondent Nos.5 and 6 and accordingly, dismissed the application.

8. Petitioner herein stated that she along with defendant Nos.2 and 3 are daughters of defendant No.1 and they constitute Hindu undivided joint family and are in joint possession of suit schedule A' and 'B' properties. In the written statement filed by defendant No.4, it is stated that plaintiff knows that no property is left for partition. The entire property which was held by defendant Nos.l and 4 are their self acquired properties ald moreover to meet their necessities, they' already sold away the properties and paid the debts by 5 defendant No. 1 itself. The rest of the propt:rt5r situated at Mulugu Grampanchayath bearing H.No. 10-5[i was gifted to Pakala Sridahr Reddy and the land in Sy.No.42tt was also gifted in his favour as he served defendant No.1 and he is in possession of the said two properties ald he also mutated in his name. He performed the funeral of defen<lant No.l. She further stated that due to old age, she was suffering with o1d age ailments and defendant No.3 and her son s,srved defendant No.1 by spending their huge time and money ar.d thus they are only eligible to enjoy the property.

9. I.A.No.20 of 2023 is filed to implead the proposed respondents. Petitioner stated that she came to know about the sale of properties recently and further state,d that the said properties were sold during the subsisten ce of interim application and respondents clearly stated that there was no interim order and moreover, in the written state ment itself, the sale of properties was mentioned, as such the contention of the petitioner that she came to know about them recently is not proper. The trial Court rightly considered tht: arguments of l t ) I ; 6 both sides and dismissed the application. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order and accordingly, the present revision is liable to be dismissed

10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order of the trial Court dated 79.I2.2O23 passed in I.A.No.20 of 2023 in O.S.No.27 of 2022. No costs Miscellaleous petitions pending, if any, shal1 stand closed. I SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 ,l

4. 5 o. The Senior Civil Judge, Mulugu, Mulugu District' One CC to Sri. M Madhava Reddy Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. Prabhakar Chikkudu Advocate IOPUC] One CC to Smt. T Swetcha, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri C.Mohan Prakash, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD CoPies (e MKN/PSL i I 6 o.. ? I AlJ8 2025 HIGH COURT DATED:0210412025 ORDER CRP.No.498 of 2024 THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED. +-? Lt T LT