The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under sectlon 151 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 operation of the i:roceedings pursuant Docket order d ated 3.07.202s passed in sR.o.s.No.269 of 202s on the file of the Hon'ble senior civil Judge, Peddapalli, allow the ctaim petition filed by the petitioner I plaintiff pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2368 of 2o25 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is hled challerrging the order dated O4.O7.2025 in SR O.S.No.269 of 2025 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli.

3. The petitioner has hled suit against resllondents for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property Lrasing on the registered s,ale deed bearing No.4361 of 2022 dated 3O.O5.2022. Learned trial Court raised the following objection: "The registered sale deed relied bg the pktintiff reueals that non-pagment of consideration bg the plaintiff. Hence suit may be returned."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner resubmitted bundle with the following explanation: " Request to call on bench today to clarifg objection. " I(L,J C R. P. No 2368 of 2025 2

5. Vide Order dated 04.07.2022, the learned tria-l Court returned the said plaint the following grounds " Heard the counsel for plaintiff. This suit is filed for partition basing on the registered sale deed 436 1 / 2022, dt. 30.05. 2022. "

2. The plaintiff herein is uendee No.3 and hauing joint possession along u.tith uendee No.1 and 2 utho are D1 and D2 to this Sulf. As such, she is hauing joint possession and register the suit.

3. After heaing, perusing the auerments of the plaint and sale deed in fauour of Plaintiff and D1 and D2 herein in uhich mentioned that Dl and D2 are hauing 100ok share ouer the schedule propertA i.e., suit schedule propertA As per tLrc document, the plaintiff herein is nominal partg and not paid ang mnsideration and hauing no share in the schedule propertg of the docuinent 4361/2022. Hence, joint possession and suit for' partition cannot be maintainoble and as per document no share to the plainttff. Hence, ploint is retunted.and hauing no cause of oction to plaintiff to fi.le the suit.

4. Hence, plaint is retunted as not maintainable." KL.J C. R,P.No.l3f ,8 of 2025 3 Challenging the said order, petitioner .lk:d the present revision petition.

6. As discussed supra, the aforesaid suit is filed for partition and separate possession by the petrtioner basing on the registered sa_le deed bearing No.436 I 12022. In paragraph No. 1 of the recitals of the said sale deed, it is mentioned as follows: " The Vendee No.1 paid the sale consideration of Rs. 14,64,5OO/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Sirty Four Thousand Fiue Hundred onlg) through ()nline Transfer/ Cash, for his share of Sook to the uendor finn, and the Vendee No.2 paid the sale consideratitn of Rs.7,32,250/ (Rupees Seuen Lakh Thirty Two Thousand Ttuo Hundred and Fifty onlg) through Ctnline Transfer/ Cash, for his share of 25% to the uendor firtn, and the Verrdee No.2 paid the sale consideration of Rs.7,32,25O/ - (Rupees Seuen lakh Thirtg Ti:r,to Thousand Ttuo Hundred and Fifty onlg) through Cnline Transfer/ Cash, for his share of 25ok to the uendor fi.rm, in this uay the Vendees has paid the entire sole tortsideratiort amount of Rs.29,29,00O/ - (Rt pees Ttoenty Nine Lakhs Twentg Nine Thousand ontg) tt the uendor Finn. the receipt of which the uendor lirm, hereby adm its and acknou.tledges, the uendor fittn herebg sells. conueys, transfers and assigns unto the I I KL..,I C.R.P.No.2368 of 202.5 4 uendee all his ights, title interest, claim and demand whatsoeuer in the 'SCHEDULE' mentioned propertg and deliuers uacant possession and occupation and thereof to the uendee to hold sources, piuileges, easements, a.ppurtenances or anA other things hidden in the dearth or belonging to appurtenant thereto. " 7 . Thus, as per the recita-ls of the said sale deed, the Vendee No.2 i.e., Amirishetti Sathish has paid an arnount of Rs. 14,64,5OO1- towards sale consideration r.e., SOoh of his share. Vendee No.1 i.e., Ravi Kumar Katikanapally has paid an amount of Rs. 14,64,500/-, i.e., 5O%o of the sale consideration. Thus, Vendee No. I had paid 5O%o of the sale consideration and Vendee No.2 has paid balance SOoh of the sale consideration. It appears that the petitioner is only forma-l party. As discussed supra, basing on the said registered sale deed, petitioner has filed the aforesaid suit seeking partition and separate possession claiming that he is entitled to I l4tn of the suit schedule property.

8. In the said sale deed, there is no mention that the petitioner has 1/4tr' of the share in the suit schedule KL,J C.R. P.l,lo 11368 of 2O25 5 property. Therefore, learned trial Court riglrtly raised the aforesaid objection. g. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Vendee No. 1 i.e., Sri Ravi Kumar Katikanapally is the relative of the petitioner herein and he has taken 25o/o of the sale consideration from her and paid ir to the vendor i.e., M/s.Vaishnavi Agro Industries. Even then, he has not mentioned the said fact in the said sale deed. Thus, he has play:d fraud in collusion with the Vendee No.2, i.e., Amirishetti Sathish. The said facts were not mentioned in the plaint filed by her. She has claimed only I /4th of the I \ share basing on the said registered.sale dee<I.

10. The petitioner has resubmitted thc suit on O3.O7.2O25. Even in the explanation to the objection raised by the trial Court, the petitioner has not explained the said lact including fraud pleLyr:d by the Vendee No.1 in collusion with Vendee No.l2. As such, I I KL,J C R.P.No.236n of 2025 6 the learned trial Court has rightly returned the plaint filed by the petitioner herein on the aforesaid ground. Therefore, the objection raised by the learned trial Court and the order dated O4.O7.2025 is reasoned and there is no error in it.

11. In the light of the above discussion, the objection raised by the trial Court is sustained and the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file suit afresh with proper pleadings. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if aly, pending in the Civil Revision Petition sha-ll stand dismissed. \ To, SD/- K.AMMAJI TY REGISTRAR E I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli. 2. One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies SS/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1 810712025 1FlE.:;;riI G O3 sEP M ,r o ,A j ) ,l) ,?, l) Sl-r rC ,rf-0 ORDER CRP.No.2368 of 2025 DISMISSING THE C.R.P. 1