The High Court · 2025

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 susp-end the iudgment and decree dated 15-04-2023 pissed in O.S. No. j.35 of 2017 on the file of the Agent to Governmen! Bhadradri-(othagudem pending disposal of the appeal. Counsel for the Appellanl Sri R.R.Kalyan. Counsel for the Respondent Smt. y. Sonanjali. The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: ,4 ,) Lr THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO APPEAL SUIT No.31O of 2o.23 JUDGMENT: This Appeal is Iiled challenging the Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.135 of 2017 dated 15.04.2023 passed by the Court of the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem.

2. Heard both sides and perused the material on record

3. The suit in O.S.No.135 of 2OL7 is filed by the respondent-plaintiff for partition seeking preliminary decree and separate possession in respect of suit schedule property, i.e,., (1) agricultural land to an extent of Ac.l-22 guntas in Sy.No.66, situated at Seethampeta, H/o. Uppaka Revenue Village, Pinapaka Mandal and (21 agricultural land to an extent of Ac. L-34 guntas in Sy.No .316/E and Ac.O-31 guntas in Sy.No.318/AA, total land admeasuring Ac.2-25 guntas in one compact block, situated at Seethampeta, Hlo. Uppaka Revenue Village, Pinapaka Mandal.

4. It is further stated in the plaint that the appellant- defendant is the brother of the respondent-plaintiff and their \ -\. \ \ 2 ,,] grandmother, by name, Salveru Rajamma, W/o. Rajaiah Rao, got patta lands in sy.No .316 /E to an extent of Ac. L-34 guntas and Ac.0-O31 guntas in Sy.No.318/AA, situated at Seethampeta, Hlo. Uppaka Revenue Village, pinapaka Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. Salveru Rajamma has one daughter by name, Salveru alias Vara Laxmi, W / o. Raghavaiah and there are no male heirs. After the death of Salveru Rajamma, her daughter i.e., Salveru alias vara La:<mi, succeeded the above lands as class-I legal heir. Later, salveru alias Vara Laxmi and Raghavaiah were blessed with two male children, who are t.l.e appellant-defendant and the respondent-plaintiff. During the tife time of vara Larmi and Raghavaiah, they acquired land to an extent of Ac.L-22 guntas in Sy.No.66, situated at Seethampeta, H/o. Uppaka Revenue village, Pinapaka Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. Later the parents of appellant-defendant and respondent-plaintiff died, leaving them as the legal heirs and subsequently, they have inherited their parents' properties. Respondent-plaintiff approached the appellant-defendant and requested him to allot his legitimate half share in the suit schedule property, but the appellant-defendant refuted the / '''] J sarne, and the respondent-plaintiff was compelled to file a suit for partition.

5. The appellant-defendant filed his written statement, admitted his relationship with the respondent-plaintiff and further stated that, Salveru Rajamma, during her lifetime, has alienated land in Sy.No.318 to an extent of Ac.0-31 guntas and Ac.O-09 guntas in Sy.No.316, a total extent of Ac.1-00 guntas, for a consideration of Rs.72OO /- to the wife of the appellant-defendant by n€une, Vora Anjalamma, W/o. Vora Janardhan, on 29.06.1987 and the said agreement was signed by Vora Rajamma, Vora Janardhan, Vqra Nageswara Rao and attested by Vora Venkata Narasaiah, P. Ramulu, Vdra Krishna Murthy. Since then, the above said lands have been in the possession of the wife of the appellant-defendant. On 08.06.L993, Salveru Rqjamma alienated the land to an extent of Ac.0-8O guntas in Sy.No.316 in favour of Vora Anjalamma, W/o. Janardhan, for a consideration of Rs.9,4OO /-, and the said agreement was signed by Salveru Rajamma, Vora Janardhart, Vora Nageswara Rao, attested by G.Shankaraiah, Pentaiah and scribed by Bandaru Pentaiah. On 28.05. lgg4, the respondent-plaintiff executed an 4 I i' agreement in favour of the appellant-defendant for alienating his share in Sy.No.316 to €u:r extent of Ac.O-27 guntas @ Rs.19,000/- per acre and he has received Rs.12,825/- towards consideration for alienating the above property in favour of the appellant-defendant, as such, the property is not available for partition. Suit is bad for non-joinder of parties, prayed to dismiss the said sr-rit.

6. The following issues are framed by the Court: " 1. Whpther the suit properties are joint properties of the ptaintiff and defendant, and gf sq r.,s the plaintiff entitled to partition of tle suit sch.eduled propertg?

2. Whether the lands fn Sy.iVo.318 and. Sy.No.Sl 6, mea.suring an ertent of Ac.l.O4gts and Ac.l.Oogts respectiuelg, were , alienated by Salueru Rajanma in fauor of Vara Anjamma, the wtfe of the defendant, for q considerqtion of Rs. 7,200/ - on 29.06.i987?

3. Whether Salueru Rajamma, on 08.06.1993, alienated an additional Ac.2.0ogts of land to Vara Anjamma, ttrc wife of tlrc defendan| for a ansideration of Rs.9,500/ -?

4. Wlatlrcr the plaintiJf, on 28.05.1994, alienated Ac.0.27gts of larul in Sg.No.316 of Seetlwmpeta for a con"sideration of Rs. 1 2, 82 5/ - in fauor of tle defend ant? 5. Wheth.er the partition of Sy.No.66 (Item No.t of the suit property) hos alreadg taken place between the ptaintiff-and the defendant, and if sq is it not auailable for partition as the ptaintiff and cefendant alreadg haue equal shares in the rand? / 5

6. Whether th.e plainttf i.s entitled to partition with meets and bounds as requested in the ptaint?

7. Whether the ptaintiff i.s entitled to consequential injunction?

8. What relief, if ang, should be granted?

7. Respondent-plaintiff is ex€unined as PWl and two others were examined as PW2 and PW3 and got marked Exhibits A1 and A2. The appellant-defendant is examined as DWl and three other witnesses were examined as DW2, DW3 and DW4. Appellant-defendant has shown 19 documents in his affidavit but they were not marked.

8. The learned Agency Court uide Judgment dated L5.O4.2O23, decreed the suit as prayed for.

9., Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submits that the trial court failed to appreciate the pleadings and evidence of the parties in toto and that it ought to have answered all the issues framed there on. He further submitted that the trial Court tailed to take into consideration the documents relied upon by the appellant and that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, prayed to set aside the impugned judgment dated 15.04.2023. 6 '/1.1 \-1

10. Learned counsel for the.sole respondent fairly conceded that the documents filed by the appellant-defendant were not taken into consideration by the trial Court and prayed to remand the matter for fresh consideration.

11. A perusal of the impugned judgment dated 1S.O4.2023 shows that the learned Agency court without answering alt the issues framed thereon in detail manner, disposed of the suit. The evidence affidavit of DW-l also goes to show that he has filed 19 documents to substantiate his contention and those documents were not reflected in the appendix of the judgment. Learned Agency court has also not referred to the evidence led by the parties with regard to the claims and their contentions. since the learned. counsel for the respondent has fairly conceded to remanc the matter, this court has no other option but to remand the same. 12' Having regard to the aforesaid submissions made by respective counsel and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this is a fit case to remand the matter back to the Agency Court, rvith a direction to give an opportuni$r to the learned dounsel on record and decide the matter afresh. It is 7 made clear that the learned Agency Court. shall not be influenced by the observations made by this Court in the Judgment and dispose of the matter at the earliest, strictly in accordance with law.

13. tn the result, Appeal is allowed. Impugned Judgment and Decree in o.s.No.135 of 2OL7 dated 15.04.2023 passed by the Court of the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagud.em, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court as indicated in the Judgment without cost. Miscellaneous petitions pending' if arly' shall stand closed \ //rRuE coPY I I SD'. R.KARTHIKEYAN t- JotNT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Agent to Government' Bhadradri Kothagudern' 2. one cC t" srinln'r"ry'l,l*""cate [oPUCl 3. One CC to S*i' Yio"'u"iufi' Advocate TOPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies ]CK PSL o HIGH COURT DATED:20 / 08 /202s JUDGMENT: AS.No.310 of 2023 I I 't HE Slh 3 ?l JAN 2o26 * Allowing and remanding the A.S. without costs