The High Court · 2025

K.Srinivas, S/o.Late K.Swamy, Business R/o. Flat no. 104, Sapthagiri Apartment, 3rd Floor, Street No. 8, Habsiguda, Hyderabad. 2 J 4 Smt. Sarojini, Wo. Late Mallesham, Household, R/o. 1-7!64, Chaitanyapuri, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. Smt.Andaloo, Wo.Yadagiri, Housewife, Rlo. 12-1 -5, Lalapet, Secbad-l 7 Ch.Vijaya Lakshmi, Wo.Ch.Yadagiri, Housewife, R/o. LIG 8-485, ECIL, AS Rao Nagar Colony, Secunderabad. K.Sivanand, S/o. Late K.Krishna, aged about 32 years pcc:Pvt employee, R/o 2-2-185154, srinivas nagar colony, bagh amberpet, hyderabad. 5th respondent is impleaded as per the Hon'ble Court order dated 01 . 1 0.20 15 made in CCCAMP No.333i2015. ... Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between : K.Srinivas, S/o.Late K.Swamy, Business R/o. Flat no. 1 04, S apthagiri Apartment, 3rd Floor, Street No. B, Habsiguda, Hyderabad. AND ...Petitioner/Respondent l,lo.1 /Defendant No. 1 K.Kalyan Chakaravarthy, S/o.Late K.Panduranga Rac, Business R/o. H.No 103, P and T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. K.Sudheer Chakravarthy, S/o.Late K. Panduranga Rao. Business R/o. H.No 103, P and T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. 2 ...Res pondents/Appellants

3. Smt Sarojini, W/o Late Mallesham, Household, Rlo. 1-7.64, Chaitanyapuri, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

4. Smt.Andaloo, Wo Yadagiri, Housewife, R/o. 12-1-5, La acet, Secbad-'17 5. Ch Vr;aya Lakshmi, Wo.Ch.Yadagiri, Housewife, Rio. L O 8-485, ECIL, AS Rao Nagar Colony, Secunderabad. ...Respondents/Defendants (Note:The Respondents No 3,4 & 5 are not necessary partier;'o this case) Petition under Order XLI Rule 27 o't CPC Section 15 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo t of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the documents ie., (i) WILL dated 2510111999, (ri) "N4emorandum of Partition" dated 12.tO911985 and (iir) Memorandum of Undertaking, dated 1310911992, on behalf of the Petitioner/Respondent No.l in the above appeal. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri D.Srinivas Rao Counsel for the Respondents : Smt.Seema Yasmeen, reprersenting Sri C.Vikram Chandra The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA I.A.Nos.1 of 2o24 Inland CITY CwIL COURT APPEAI No.79 of 2O11 COMMON JUDGMENT: Challenging the judgment dated 14 .02.20 1 I passed in O.S.No. 10O of 2008 by the le ed XI Additionat Chict Judgc (Fast Track Court), City C il Court, Hyderabad, the present City Civil Court Appeal is filed.

2. The briel facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had trled the suit seeking partition oi S.h.d'.-,1. A and B properties into five equal shares and allotment of one such share each to themselves and the defendants, a,iong with mesne profits, alleging that the propbrties were originally purchased by their grandparents, K. Swamy and his wife Agamma, under two registered sale deeds, and on their inlestate death, the properties devolved equally upon their three sons ald three daughters. They claimed entitlement to 1/Sttr share each along with defendant Nos.l and 4, asserting that the widow and child of the third son, Krishna, 2 SKS,J CCC,\.No.79 of 2011 had left the famiiy and their whereabouts u,e r e unknown, and that defcndant No.1 had refused to partition the property or pa1, their share of rents

3. Defendant No. 1, adopting a comm )11 written statement lor other defendants, admitted the acquisition and relationship but contended that an oral pr rtition took place in the r.ear 1985 wherein the suit properlir:s fell to the share of his mother and mentally retarded lour,fer brother Krishna, and t hat his mother, being the absol rte owner after the death of Krishna, had executed a \Vi1l dated 25.01 .1999 in his favour, under which he lrecame the exclusive owner; he relied on certain sale deeds, a GPA, and earlier litigation (OS No. 6280/ 1998) to suppon his; pk:a.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial (tr,u.rt framed four issues and additional two issues and on ltt:LLalf of the plaintiffs i.e., PW.1 u,as examined and Ex.Al-arLc A2 were marked. DW. I was cxamined and Exs.B1 l( 84 were marked on behalf of thc defendants. ----7 3 SXS,J CCC.q- o.79 of 2011

5. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the defendants had produced evidence sulhcient to believe the oral partition and existence of the Will but held that failure to produce the Will meant exclusive rights in favou r of defendant No. I were not proved and that the legal heir of Krishna was a necessary party, and non-joinder was a technical defect fatal to the suit' Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs hled the present City Civil Court Appeal.

6. Heard Sri D. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf o[ the appellants as well as Smt. Seema Yasmeen, learned counsel representing Sri C. Vikram Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents' p Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the 7. judgment under aPPeal was contrary to law, facts, pleadings, and evidence on record, and that in the given circumstances, based on oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit for partition as prayed for. He further that the trial Court committed a senous error in dismissing the suit on the technical ground i \- 4 SKS'J CC( A No.79 of 2011 of non-joinder of the legal heirs of K' Krishna, thl son of the common anccstors K. Swamy and K' Agamma, r''hcn such a plea was ncither raised in the written sta cment nor supported by evidence and that the whereaboutli the wife ')f and children of the Krishna were admittedly not known to either par[', and therefore non-joinder was not i'rtal to the suit. Learned counsel for the appcllants conte rrled that if 8. the trial Court considered [hem necessary partrci, it ought to have reserved a share in their favour while rrllotting the remaining shares as per the Hindu Successlo l Act He further contended that the trial Court, having forrnd that the oral partiti()n and Will pleadcd by the defendartri were not proved, should have granted partition in far our of the plaintiffs regardless of whether Krish r;r's represcntatives were impleaded and that in a p: rtition suit, non-joinder of a necessary party is not fatal, 'a n d the trial Court should not have dismissed the claim without framing an issue on that point. Thcrefore, he praved tl'rr: Court to set aside thc judgment of the trial Court by alllrving this City Civil Courl Appeal. t / 5 SKS'J CCCA.No.79 of 2O1l g. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was a flaw in the suit itself, as all the necessary parties had not been impleaded' and only after impleading them could evidence be properly adduced by the plaintiffs and the defendants' He further submitted that the evidence was not properly adduced by either party, and that along with the implead petition' defendant No. t had also filed I.A'No' I of 2024 seeking to receive additionat documents, stating that certain essential documents, including the Will which had been marked in an earlier suit, were not filed before the trial Court' He explained that they had obtained a certified copy of the Will' but due to the mistake of the counsel, these documents were not produced at the time of trial Therefore' he contended that the matter should be remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration, and accordingly prayed for , such remand .t

10. ln the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that thc suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground of non-joinder of necessary ) 6 S1(s,J CCC/1.l{o.79 of 2011 parties. The appetlants herein have filed an application before this Court seeking to implead the neces;:1ry parties. Though notice was ordered by this Court, thc ,said notice has not been served on the proposed reslto rtlents, and without such service, the parties cannot be adCed to the suit. On the other hand, learned coltnri( I for the respondents has flled another petition seekin j to receive certain additional documents, contending thal t lt( y were nol properly adduced before the trial Court, and t hat clue to counsel's mistake, certain vi[al documents, ir cluding thc Will, were not filed. He further submitted that tht: suit, having been dismissed for non-joinder of neces:iary parties, requires tha[ notice be issued to such partic;, and an opportunitl' be given to both sides to addu:t: evidence afresh.

11. In view of the above facts and circumsl zrr rces, and at the request of both parties, this Court is of the ogrinion that the matter deserve s to be remanded to the trial ( ourt

12. Accordingly, the Cily Civil Court Appea[ i nd I.A.No.1 of 2024 are disposed of, remanding the matter to the trial / 7 SKS,J cccA.Ito-7g of 2011 Court for considering afresh by giving opportunity to the appellants for impleading all the necessary parties to the suit and for the respondents to adduce evidence, if it is necessary for disposal of the case. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed \ //TRUE COPY// SD/-M RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR a SECTION OFFICER To, Svs

1. The Xl Additional Chief Judge, (FTC), City Civil Court' Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri Srinivas Rao.D' Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri C.Vikram Chandra, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies /ABK w I HIGH COURT DATED:0611012025 COMMON JUDGMENT l.A NO.1 0F 2024 IN/AND CCGA.No.79 ot 2011 .'J i .) iD \\e \ua. \ (rlE SI4 ,(- r)'' ). il5 r0ll M z o 1l \ * DISPOSING OF THE CCCA AND I.A NO 1I OF 2024 N ",df \r- X"