The High Court · 2025

26. Sivanandhini Srinivas, S/o.Mallaiah, Aged Major, Occ. Not Known, R/o.H.No.13-86, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District.

27.Akula Srinivas, , S/o.Lingaiah, Aged Major, Occ. Not Known, R/o.Eppal Narsingapur Village, Karimnagar District. 2g.Pe?la Venkateshwar Rao,, S/o.Thirupathi, Aged Major, Occ. Not Known, R/o.H.No.20-177, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District.

29. Godisala Ashok, , S/o.Kistaiah, Aged Major, Occ. Not Known, Rl/o.H.No.1- 29/1, Thummanapally Village, Karimnagar District.

30.Chetlapally Raja Gopal,, S/o.Muthi Lingam, Aged Major, Occ. Not Known, R/o.H.No.2-92l1, Bheemaram, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District. ...Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 of 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. '142 ol 2022 on the file of Principal District Judge, Hanumakonda District pending disposal of the main CRP in the interest of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 of 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 orders in LA. No. 2633 of 2024 in O.S. No. 142 of 2022 on the file of Principal District Judge, Hanumakonda District pending disposal of the present CRP in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI RAMA MOHAN PALANKI Counsel for the Respondent No.20,21,22,25,26,27 &29: SRI P NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.24: SRI BALLA RAVINDRANATH The Court made the following: ORDER THEHON0URABLESMT.JUSTICERENUKAYARA CryIL REvISIO N T ON No.895 ot 5 oRDER: HeardSriK.srinivasReddy,learnedcounselfortherevision petitioner and Sri Rama Mohan Palanki, learned counsel fbr respondent No.7. Perused the entire record'

2. The revision petition is tiled by the revision p'etitioner/proposed defendant No.31 aggrieved by the order dated 06'02'2025 passed by the principal District Judge at Hanumakonda, ('trial court')' in I'A'No '2633 of 2224in o.S.No .142 of zozz,wherein petition fited under order I Rule l0 (2)ofC.P.C.,toaddherasdef.endantNo.3linthemainsuit,hasbeen dismissed. The parties are referred as per their array before the trial court'

3. The main suit is filed by plaintiff-Erukonda (Brahmadevara) Sridevi seeking partition and separate possession o[ the properties consisting of dry landtoanextentofAc.T-0gguntasinSy.No.6Tandhousebearing GrampanchayathNos.3-4,3-5admeasuringt2l0sq.yardsbothsituatedat Chinthagattu Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District (.Suit Schedule A and B Property') and for cancellation of decree dated 23.08. lgg6in o.S.No.319 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Senior civil Judge at Warangal' The suit has been filed showing that property \ \ \ \I- \".-.*1 RY,J cRP 895 2025 belonging to Erukonda Mankaiah is managed by his only son Erukonda Swamy/defendant No.2. Plaintiff is the eldest daughter of deceased- Erukonda Prabhakar, who is eldest son of Erukonda Swamy and remaining defendants i.e., defendant Nos.3 to 7 are children and defendant Nos.S and 9 are grandchildren of Erukonda Swamy. In short, the plaintiff being granddaughter of Erukonda Swamy (D2) and being daughter of deceased Erukonda Prabhakar (son of D2), filed suit for partition. In the said suit, the I.A. under revision is filed by the revision petitioner/ proposed defendant No.3l claiming to be daughter of Erukonda Mankaiah and therefore, to implead her as defendant No.3 l, as she is in possession of the suit schedule property. The said I.A. has been dismissed on the grounds of non description of suit schedule property along with survey numbers and non production of documents to show relationship. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

4. In the grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the plaintiff-Erukonda (Brahmadevara) Sridevi and remaining defendants intend to knock away the property of deflendant No.2 without knowledge of the revision petitioner and therefore, she has not been made as party to the suit. The revision petitioner/proposed defendant No.3l is daughter of Erukonda Mankaiah and she succeeded the property of said Erukonda Mankaiah. 2 RY,J cRP 895 2025 The fact of impledment of the revision petitioner/ proposed defendant No.3l being datrghter of Erukonda Mankaiah is supported by defendant Nos.6, 20 to 22,25 to 27 and 29 in their counter filed in I'A'No'209 0f 2022. Though, the said fact was brought to the notice of the trial court' the I.A. has been dismissed. There is a clear averment in said t'A'No'209 of 2022 by defendant Nos .6, 20 to 22, 25 to 27 and 29 that the revision petitioner/ proposed defendant No.31 has succeeded to the property of her father and sold the same to defendant No'2 herein for which there is no documentary proof. tn the absence of the documentary proof' the right of survivorship survives and therefore, she is proper and necessary party to the present suit. According to the revision petitioner/proposed defendant No.3l, none of the parties to the suit have any right in the suit schedule property as it was exclusive property of Late Erukonda Mankaiah, who is father of the revision petitioner/ proposed defendant No'31' There is an attempt to obtain collusive decree and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/proposed defendant No.3 t argued that there is a clear admission that Erukonda Mankaiah and Erukonda Ramulu are real brothers and the revision petitioner/proposed defendant No.31 is daughter of Erukonda Mankaiah. The parties to the suit 3 are regal heirs of Erukonda Ramuru, who is brother of Mankaiah' tr 27and29and RY,J cRP-895 2025 This fact between isclearlydisclosedbydefendantNos.6,20to22,25 therefore, need of any additional proof to prove the relationship the Erukonda Mankaiah and revision petitioner is not required' After the defendant No.3 t has succeeded to his property uru t' exclusive owner and possessor. whire so, the suit is filed without impleading the revision deathoftheErukondaMankaiah'therevisionpetitioner/proposed petitioner/proposeddefendantNo.3laspartytoknockawayherproperty byobtainingcollusivedecree.Hence,submittedthattheimpugnedorderis tiable to be set aside'

6.LearnedcounselforrespondentNo.T/defendantNo.6arguedthat there is no inhrmity in the order passed by the trial court as the revision petitioner/ProPosed defendant No'31 failed to Prove her relationshiP and schedule property dnd therefore' she is not impleaded' is made that the revision petition is prepared huniedly possession.over suit However, allegation withoutknowingthepropernameoftherevisionpetitioner,whichis 1 shownasG.Radhamma/Rajamma.Theaffidavitfiledhereinshowsthat thenameoftherevisionpetitioner/proposeddefendantNo.3lisRajamma andwhereas,thecausetitteofthel.A.showsthenameasRadhamma.Itis argued that the revision petitioner/ proposed defendant No'31 is acting at -- ./ 4 the behest of the plaintiff_Brahmadevara RY.J cRP_895 202s Sridevi to protract the proceedings and therefore, contention of the revision petitioner is Iiable to be dismissed. 7 ' A perusar of the preadings of various petitions, counters and orders show that there is no dispute about rerationship between the parties except for relationship of the revision petitioner herei,/proposed defendant No.3 r. The property which is subject matter of the suit was aregedry possessed by Late Erukonda Mankaiah and the said property was in the contror of deceased-defendant No.2 and had devorved on his Iegar heirs after his death' while so, some of the famiry members, who are arraigned as defendant Nos.6, 20 to 22,25 to 27 and 29have averred in the counter filed in I'A'No-209 of 2022 that defendant No.2 is not son of Erukonda Mankaiah, but son of Erukonda Ramulu, who is natural brother of Erukonda Mankaiah. Further, memo dated 24.03.2025 which was issued by the Tahsildar, Hasanparthy Mandal, is also submitted along with memo in the present C.R.P., wherein it is reported as follows: "with reference to the above subject and reference, Sri Thallapalli Hareesh, S/o. Sadanandam filed an applicarion under reference I't cited requesting to declare Smt. Burra Radhamma, wo Mallaiah, R/o Jayagiri village as daughter of lrrukonda Gangamma, W/o Mankaiah, R/o Chlnthagauul In this regard on enquiry came_t9 know that Smt. Erukonda Cungu'i'nu' W/o^ mankaiah' RJo' Chinthagattu is d".;h;;;-by nu'n" Radhum*a and one Burra Mallaiah' RJo Jayagir'r- got married ;;' As per Mandal Girdawar' having " *--t\ Hasanparthy Report under reference 2"d cited it is came into light that Erukonda Gangamma, wlo I\{ankaiah is having a daughier by name Burra Radhamma.', RY,J cRP 895 2025

8. Further, as per the pleadings in counter of defendant No.6 in I.A.No.2633 of 2024, one Ramulu and Mankaiah are natural brothers and defendant No.2 is son of Ramulu, but not Mankaiah. The said Mankaiah is father of revision petitioner and his property is devolved on her and she did not sell the said property to anybody. 9- The contents of memo dated 24.03.2025 issued by the Tahsildar, Hasanparthy Mandal, and the contents of counter filed by defendant No.6 in I.A.No.2633 of 2024 (I.A. under revision) show prima focie case in favour of revision petitioner/ proposed defendant No.3 I that she is daughter of Late Mankaiah and that his property devorved on her being successor. 10. The case of plaintiff_Erukonda (Brahmadevara) Sridevi is that the suit schedure properties were sord to her grandfather i.e., defendant No.2, while' the same is denied by other parties including the revision petitioner herein/ proposed defendant No.3l. Since there is a prima faciecase of relationship between the common ancestor (Erukonda Mankaiah) of the. plaintiff and the revision petitioner/ proposed defendant No.3 r and as the suit is fired for partition and separate possession of the property which were 6 7 cRP 895 2025 originatly owned by Late Erukonda Mankaiah, the revision petitioner/ proposed defendant No.3 1, who is claiming to be in possession of the suit schedule property becomes a necessary party whose presence is necessary to ascertain truthfulness in the version presented by plaintiff and also for passing effective decree in case the revision petitioner/ proposed defendant No.31 is in possession of the said property. The revision petitioner/ proposed defendant No.31 would be proper party in case, the deceased- def'endant no.2 is not son of Erukonda Mankaiah and the suit for partition is not maintainable. For the purpose of putting forth true facts and for just ntitled to be imPleaded adjudication of the case, the revision petitioner is e i.e., the impugned order is liabte to be set aside' ll.tntheresult,theCivilRevisionPetitionisallowedbysettingaside theimpugnedorderdatedo6.o2.2o25int.A.No.2633of2024in o.S.No.|42of2o22onthefileofthetrialCourt.Consequently,the l.A.No.2633ofT024isallowedandtherevisionpetitionerheretnlS impteadedasdefendantNo.3linthemainsuit.Thereshallbenoorderas ro costs. Miscellaneous applications' if any' pending tn'';;t]iJiUi*= oiPurv REGISTRAR r (/ \ ,TTRUE COPY" SECTION OFFICER I 2. 3 4 5 6 To, @ "1 ',,! .":'.{ HIGH COURT DATED: 1St1Ot2O2s ORDER CRP.No.895 of 2025 / / i rlt: :5 1a r( ( L c L) ,1 I llul/ '!w * ,l: 9l''a I r',.r' ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS Lo t\ t