The High Court · 2025

. Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 grant injunction restraining the respondent No.2 from alienating and changing the nature of the suit schedule property pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitione(s):SRl. Y. Krishna Mohan Rao Counsel for the Respondent No1: Sri M.Damoder Reddy Counsel for the Resoondent Nos 2&3. S Purender Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JT'STICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA C.R.P. No.1632 ' of 2O18 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Pltition haq 1 beenl filed : tiy the pctitioner/ plaintiff under Section I l5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'C.P.C')assailing the order dated 2L.72.2017 passed in I.A.No.602 of 2O17 rn O.S.No.609 of 2006 by the XVII Senior Civil Judge, City Civii Court, Hyderabad, (for short 'the impugned order').

2. Vide the impugned order, the trial court after going into the mcrits of lhe case and considering the entire oral and documentary cvidcncc placed by the petitioner/ plain I iff has dismissed the petition filed b1. the petitioner/ plaintiff under Order 47 read with Section 1i4 of C.P.C., seeking to review the judgrrent and decree, dated 1 l-O8.2O77, passed in O.S.No.609 of

3. The said suit was frled seeking for the following reliel': i. To partition the suit schedule property I-l.No>3-2-832, standing on an area of 186.20 sq.yards or 155.49 sq.nleters, situated at Rahmat Bagh, chappal Bazaar, Nampally Mandal, Hyderabad into 6 equal shares by metes and bounds keeping in view the good and bad qualities, cquities declaring that the plaintiff and the defendant No.3 is entitlecl to 1/6th share each and the defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to 2l6th share each 2 !44,J CRP.No.1532 oJ 2018 and conse(luently appoint Advocate-Commissioner for partitioning of the suit sc;Ledule property into 3 equal shares by metes and bounds and allot 17,rtL .nu.. to the plaintiff. 1l That the pLrintiff be put in vacant physical possession of such 1/6th share allottt:d to herein the suit schedule property. To award thl costs ofthe suit.

4. The learned trial court after going into the merits of the case and after considering the entire materials and the evidence placed before the trial court and also consiclcring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. thc trial court has came 1,) conclusion that the 2"d defendant has not proved the execution of the EX-B14 by his mother by removing the suspicious circumstance slrrlounding it and answered that the trx.B14 is not genuine and not valid. Though the said suit was dismissed, the petitioner herein should have preferred an appeal'being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree instead of preferring the LA.No.602 of 2017 before the same court under Order 47 r<:ad with Section 114 of C.P.C., seeking to review of the judgment and declee, dated 1 1.08.2017 , passed in the said suit and decreed the suit for partition by dividing the suit schedule propcrty into four equal shares by applying the provisions of Indian Succession Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contencled that the learned trial court has failed to consider that in the event of neither of the parties fail 3 !rq-.I cRP.No.16 32 of 2018 to establish their respective shares under Ex.A1 and Ex.B14, the learned tria-l court ought to.have applied the Hindu Succession Act and divided the suit schedule propert5r into forr equal shares and ought to have decreed the suit.

6. It is further contended that the learned trial court having came to conclusion that will deed, dated LO.ll.2OO2, was not a genuine one but to fail to declare the mutation done on the suit schedule property in the municipal record by the defendant No.2 is invalid and the same is error apparent on the lace of the record. He also contendcd that there is no dispute with regard to the acquisition of the property by Smt.Anandamma, and the plaintiff and the defendants are children and class-I heirs of Smt.Anandamma and they are entitled to shares in the suit schedule property and also lead evidence to that effect and in such case, the court has to apply the Hin<Iu Succession Act and decreed the suit and the non-application of the same amounts to error apparent on the face of record.

7. Further, it is also contended that the learned trial court having came to conclusion that both the wills, dated 09.O1.2003 and l].ll.2OO2 are not valid and genuine rvills, ought to have applied the Hindu Succession Act which is the law governing the parties when the suit is one for partition.

8. The 2"d rqspondent therein filed the counter affidavit and contended that the said review isrnot maintainable as there is no error apparent on the 4 CRP ]vo. -1 JV/VR,J 2 of 2O1A face of the record and it will not attract the provisions of Order 47 read with Section 114 of C. P.C.

9. Having <:on sidered the entire materia.l placed before the learned tria.l court, the learne,l trial court came to conclusion that the review claimed by the petitioner czLnnot be granted for the reason that the petitioner is not entitled to seek any review of the judgment merely for the purpose of re-hearing and frrr a fresh decision and not granting the relief claimed by the petitioner in thc ;uit by the trial court cannot be characterized as a glaring omission or parent mistake, since the petitioner has not sought any alternative relief to that effect as ciaimed in .this petitior-r and also there is no error apparent orr face of the record. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

10. Heard Mr.\'.Krishna Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for thc r,:spondents. 1 1. The main c()ntention of the petitioner for seeking review was that the learned trial court did not consider the wills, ought to have allowed the suit aIld decreed thc suit by partitioning the suit schedule property into four equal shares by applying the Hindu Succession Act, as the parties are governed by the Hindu Succcssion Act. L2. Perusal of record clearly shows that the learned trial court having considered the enlire material placed before it has dismissed the petition as 5 CRP.Aro. I 4i8.1 of201a there is no error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of re-hearing and for a fresh decision, no relief of review can be granted and this court is also of the considered opinion that no review would 1ie in su6h circumstances and this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any grounds to interfere with ttre findings $ive n:by the learned trial court and as such, this civil revision petition falis to the ground and the same is dismissed. However, considering the fact that the suit is fiIed seeking lor partition and the petitioner/plaintiff is intending Iile an appeal as against the judgment and decree, granting liberty to the petitioner/ plaintift to hle appeal rvithout raising the plea of the limitation as the petitioner is entitled to seek exemption under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and it is left open for the petitioner/ plaintiff to raise all the grounds which he intends to before the appellate court artd the same shall be considercd by the concerncd appellate court on its own merits and take appropriate decision. Thcrc shall be no order as to costs.

13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER I I/TRUE COPYII To, l The XVll Senior Civil Judge,CCC Hyderabad.(with records if any) 2. One CC to SRl. Y.Krishna Mohan Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. S.Purender Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 4 One CC to SRl. M.Damoder Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies $> .IA,/GR HIGH COURT DATED:221081202t) ORDER CRP.No.1632 of 20'13 l: 'i I 16 r-r \9 CIVIL RITVISION PE l ll lON IS DISMISSED ../ #-