The High Court · 2025

5 Suleman Bin Mohammed, S/o Mohammed Bin Awaz, age. Business, (Defendant No.2 to 5 residing at H-No-10-4-380 Karimnagar) 28 years, occ. Adarshnagar,

6. Smt. Rafeequnnissa Begum @ Shaheen Begum, W/o late fVlohd. Bin Awas, age. 55 years, occ. House hold,

7. Faisal Bin Mohammed, S/o late tVlohd. Bin Awaz, age. 34 years, occ. Business,

8. Fahad Bin Mohammed, S/o late Mohd. Bin Awaz, age. 30 years, occ. Business,

9. Sumena Tarannum, D/o late tt/ohd. Bin Awaz, age.29 years, 10. Sumera Tabassum, D/o late [Mohd. Bin Awaz, age- 24 years, Defendants No.6 to 10 residing at H.No.3-5-13, Osmanpura locality of Karimnagar town. '1 1 . Smt. Naf ees, D/o Shaik Ahmed, age. 57 years, R/o. H. No.1 0-4-380, Adarshnilgar, Karimnagar.

12. Smt. Rani Suhasini, Wo late Abdullah Bin Awaz, age. 62 years, Christian, Occ. Household,

13. Khalid Bin Abdullah, S/o Abullah Bin Awaz, age. 46 years, Christian, occ. Business,

14.Omar Bin Abdullah, S/o Abullah Bin Awaz, age. 36 years, occ. Business,

15. Hajira, !\'/o Hannah Arif D/o Abdullah Bin Awaz, age. 32 years, occ. Household Respon<lents No.12to 15 are R/o, H,No.3-5-13, Osmanpura, Karimnagar.

16. Sara, W/: lVirza Asadullah Beig D/o Abdullah Bin Awaz, Muslim, age. 34 years, occ. Household, R/5.H.No.3-5-1 3, Osmanpura Street, Karimnagar town. ... RESPONDENTS/DEFE N DANTS Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MD FASIUDDIN counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 and 11: SRI MOHAMMAD RlzwAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 10 & 12 to 15: Smt. VEDULA The Court made the following: ORDER CHITRALEKHA ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUI(ARAMJI CIVIL REVISION oN No.SO4O OF. 2O2S DATE : 11.L2.2O25 Between: Mohammad Abdul Mateen ... Petitioner/ Plaintiff AND Abdulla Bin Awaz (Died) through LRs & 15 others . . . Respondents/ Defendants ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed with the following relief: "...to set aside the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar in t.A.No.435 of 2025 of in O.S.No.55 of 2019, being arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to law, and pass..."

2. Heard Sri Mohammad Fasiuddin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri Mohammad Rizwan, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and 11; and Smt. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6 to 10 and 12 to 15. \ 2 NTR, J cRP_3040_2025

3.1- Lealned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 435 of 2o2S in o.s. No. s5 of 2019 seeking to frame the following additional issues for proper adjudication of the dispute: A- whether defendant Nos. 13 and L4 are the legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 1, in view of their profr:ssing Christianity? B. whether the registered partition Deed No. 262 of 2otg datec 08.01.2019 and the registered Gift Deed No. 4oo oi 2oltt dated 11.01.2019, both registered before the Joint sub-Registrar, Karimnagar, are null and void and not binding on the plaintifP

3.2. He lurther submits that, although certain issues were framed ea:lier in the suit, the Trial court dismissed the present interlocutc,ry application on the ground that the petitioner had previously filed and withdrawn another similar application seeking ap,pellate relief. It was also observed that the petitioner had souglrt to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased <lefendant No. 1 in accordance with the scope of the J NTR, J cRP_3040_2025 suit. Consequently, the Trial Court dismissed the present application.

3.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the proposed additional issues are essential for complete and effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties. It is submitted that the earlier application was withdrawn due to the erroneous advice of the petitioner's previous counsel. The petitioner now seeks the framing of additional issues to enable the Court to determine the real questions in controversy, particularly regarding the validity of the partition and gift d.eeds.

3.4. It is further submitted that another suit for declaration of title between the parties is pending, in which issues relating to religious faith and the status of the legal representatives are in dispute. In this context, the petitioner contends that the additional issues sought are relevant and necessary for a fair trial. Accordingly, he prays for appropriate directions to the Trial Court to frame the additional issues as proposed.

4. On the other hand, learned. counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and 11 submits that they strongly object t \ c i'i 4 NTR, J cRP_3040_202s to the frrming of additional issues a'd pray for dismissal of the petition. -

5.1. Leirned counser appearing for respondent Nos. 6 to 1o and 12 to 15; submits that the Triar court rightiy dismissed the petitioner's application, as a similar application was earlier withdraw.:r by the petitioner. The plea of negligence attributed to the previous counsel, according to them, is untenable. It is further ccntended that the ailegation relating to the respondents, professing; christianity is r.r,holly irrelevant to the relief sought in the suit, vrhich is one for specific performance of an agreement of sale.

5.2- They further a-rgue that the petitioner himself brought respondent Nos. 13 and 14 on record as legal representatives of defendant No. 1, and therefore, he is estopped from questioning their lega-. status at this stage. Moreover, introducing the partition ard gift deeds as fresh issues wourd enlarge the scope of the original suit and complicate the triar unnecessarily. Hence, the revisiorr petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have pe rused the material available on record. \ 5 NTR, J cRP_3040_2025

7. The petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 18.11.2008 executed by defendant No. 1. Upon the demise of defendant No. I on 27.O5.2O2O, the petitioner brought respondents Nos. 2 to 16 on record as his legal representatives. By order dated 18.03.2025 in I.A. No. 451 of 2025, the Trial Court permitted the petitioner to amend the plaint, including the relief clause, by incorporating a challenge to the registered partition and gift deeds, contending that they are not binding upon him.

8. In these circumstances, although the petitioner had previoudly' withdrawn a similar application for framing adlditionali:1:' issues, the Trial Court, having already granted leave to amend the plaint, ought to have considered framing a corresponding issue regarding the validity of the partition and gift deeds. Under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC, the duty of the Court is to frame issues arising from the pleadings and documents on record to determine the material propositions of fact and law in controversy between the parties.

9. Framing of issues serves to clarif5t the scope of the dispute and guide the parties in leading their evidence. Courts have repeatedly held that omission to frame a necessar5r issue rrqly / / 6 i NTR, J cRP_3040_202s result in tailure of justice (see: Makhan Lal Bangal u. Mana.s Bhunia, l2oo1) 2 scc 6s2]l. Therefore, once the amended plaint has brought the partition and gift deeds into question, the Trial court ought to have framed a specific issue addressing their validity.

10. As :egards the petitioner's prayer to frame an issue concerning the religious faith of respondent Nos. 13 and 14, this Court fin<is such an issue irrelevant to the determination of the relief souglht. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement of sale, e nd the rights of the legal representatives flow from succession under law, not from religious identity. Furthermore, the petiti.ner himself admitted respondent Nos. 13 and 14 as legal repr€:sentatives of the deceased defendant No. 1. Hence, the question regarding their professing christianity has no bearing on the reli:f claimed in the suit and is rightly rejected by the Trial Court.

11. Acco;:dingly, for the proper and effective adjudication of the suit, the petitioner's request to frame an additional issue concerning the registered partition and gift deeds is found to be justified. The Trial court failed to appreciate that such an issue is 7 NTR, J cRP_3040_2025 material to the controversy and necessary for a complete determination of the rights of the parties. L2- In light of the above, the Trial court is directed to frame the following additional issue: ! "whether the registered partition Deed No. 262 of 2ol9 dated q9-07.20L9 and the registered Gift Deed No. 400 of 2ol9 dated 1 1.o 1 .20t9, both registered before the Joint Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar, are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.2"

13. The proposed issue relating to the professing of christianity by respondent Nos. 13 and 14 is found irrelevant to the dispute and, therefore, stands rejected.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. The Trial court shall frame the additional issue as directed above and proceed with the trial. The parties sharl be at liberty to place all relevant materials and evidence on record in support of their respective contentions. There shall be no order as to costs. t \ I II 8 NTR, J cRP_3040_2025 Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- P.C.SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPYII S CTION OFFICER To, 1 l i 1- The Principar District Judge, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District 2. One CC to SRt tVtD FASIUDD|N Advocate tOpUCl 3' one cc to sRr IU.HAMA/AD RrzwAN Advocate [opUC] 4. ONE CC tO SMt. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA AdVOCAIC [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VIV/PSL .. t HIGH COURT DATED: 1111212025 ORDER CRP.No.3040 of 2025 ( t t ES r4 ) v C' J:, 0 5 lvlAn 202tj * * itATctri f:O ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION IN PART