The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVLI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY APPEAL SUIT. No.8l5 of20l3 JUDGMENT (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy) This Appeal Suit is filed by the appellant/defendant No.4 against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2012 in O.S. No.344 of 2008 on the file of III Additional District Court (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, whereby the suit instituted by the respondent No. liplaintitf against the defendant Nos. I to 5 for partition in rcspect ol suit schedule property was preliminarily decreed in lavour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parlies will be referred as per their status before the Trial Court. I. BRIEF FACTS:

3. The sole plaintiff i.e., respondent No. I herein filed the suit vide O.S. No.344 of 2008 against delendant Nos. I to 5 lor partition of suit schedule "A" to "E" propertics. The case of the respondent 2 lKr;, ./ t, LRK ', ./ s.Ar I ;(,f2a173 No. l/plaintifl is that late Laxminarayana is her lathc . rnd husband of defendant ,',1o. I and grandfather of defendant Nos. I lnd .1. I_ate Laxminarayarra, who possessed the suit schedule prr.|grtrgs, digcl intestate leaving behind the respondent No. li r rrintifl. and defendant Nos. I to 3 as his legal heirs. Thus, tl.i respondent No. I/plaintiff' and defendant Nos. I to 3 are in joinl r ,s5e55r6n .t the plaint sch,:dule propefty after the demise of thc :.rid original owner, Late I-axrninarayana. The respondent No. l/pl:rinti l.t.being one of the corarceners claimed entitlement to 2/6,t, : lrarc in thc schedule of property and accordingly when she clt,rnanded the defendants for partition, the defendants sought to alier rte the suit schedule propcrty to third parties. According to thr. respondent No. l/plaintitfl, thc alienations allegedly made by de1.cr.,.jant Nos.2 and 3 in favoLrr of defendant Nos.4 and 5 are neith.. valitl nor binding upon hr_,r.

4. The def-endant No.4 filed a written statement anrl (.ontencled that defbndant \os. I to 3 alone were the owners of t r.. schedule property and th:rt they had validly executed documenr r.,rrrin!t No. 3344 dated 09.01.2006 to an extenr of Ac.0.35 I 3 AKS, J& YRKR, J A.5.No.815 of 20 I3 document No.13194 dated 14.12.2005 in sy.No. 180 admeasuring Ac.O.22 guntas and document bearing No.2229 dated 16.02.2006 in Sy.No. I79 and 227 admeasuring Ac.0.22 guntas. It was further submitted that the respondent No. l/ptaintiff is neither a coparcener nor a co-member of the joint family; that she had severed from joint family long back and hence, she does not have any subsisting right or interest in the suit property. It is further stated that only after due verification of the documents. def'endant No.4 had purchased the property being a bonafide purchaser lor value and that the present suit was filed to harass def'cndant No.4 and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed II.ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIAL COURT:

5. Basing on the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial: I ) Whether the plaint schedule property is the joint lamily property of plaintiff and D-l to D-3? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the plaint schedule property into six shares and lor allotrnent of 216'h share to her? 3) To what reliefl 4 ATis. ..'& LRI'R, J \.5 No 815 ol20 I3 III. EVIDENCE ON RECORD 6 Durinll the course ol- trial, the respondent \o.l/plaintitT examined herscllas PWI and another as PW2 and I rs..A.l to Al0 were markerl on her behalf. On the other hand, tho, rgh defendant No.4 uas eramined as DWI and marked Exs.Bl t r 83. lailed to present hirsell for cross examination and thL s. the chief exarnination al'fidavit of DW I was eschewed front rlre record on 07 .t t2.2011 IV. FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT:

7. Upon consideration of the rival contentions arrrl material on rccord, the tr ial Court passed a preliminary decree in l'avour of the respondent N o. I /plaintiff as prayed for. 8 Aggrie ved by the preliminary decree, the d-'l'cndant No.4 tlled the present Appeal to set aside the impugned ,rdgrnent and decree 9 This Court has heard the leamed counsel appr r ring lbr both sides and per-rsed the record. 5 ,.1}(.S, ,/ & rRr(R, J A s.No.91s of 20 13 V. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION:

10. The point that arises for determination is: Whether there exists any ground to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2012 in O.S. No.344 of 2008 on the file of III Additional District Court (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District? VI. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES: I l. a) Submissions on behalf of the appellant/defendant No.4: The learned counsel for the appellant/def-endant No.4 contended that the respondent No. l/plaintilf had sulficiently received good benefit before and at the time of marriage by the defendant No.1 and that after long lapse of time, she instituted the suit for partition with an ulterior motive to defraud the def-endant No.4. It was further urged that the sudden escalation of values of properties prompted the respondent No. l/plaintift to institute the partition suit. Accordingly to the defendant, there exists a collusion and conspiracy between the respondent No. I /plaintiff and defendant Nos.l to 3 for gaining unlawful amounts fiom him. It was further contended that the respondent Nos.2 and 3/ delendant 6 AK,S J &I'I?KR,J t S.lto u15 of 2O13 Nos.2 and 3 '.,rho have registered the schedule propert'f in lavour of the def'endant No.4 had produced the original t tle hook and passbook grented by the Mandal Revenue Officer, I'lajendranagar Mandal shovring the full rights of the defendants a'(rne, however, the respondent No. l/plaintiff did not take any stepr; rvith Mandal Revenue Officer to have her name mutated also as r),.re of the title holders

12. The ap,pe llant/det'endant No.4 further stated tlrrrt as rcvealed lrom the wlitten statement filed by him, apart i'om the suit schedule property in the present suit, some other pr',perties were also alienatt:d by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in la , our of the appeltant/de f:ndant No.4 under different registerec' sale deeds However, there is no whisper about those propt'rties in the impugned ju,lgment. ln a suit for partition, it was r"gued that all joint family properties brought into the hotchpot,:, and a suit seeking fbr a partial partition is typicalty not maintair,rble. Failing to include all properties in the partition suit is not naintainable According tc him, the trial Court erred in not frar irrg a specific I SSUe with regard to non inclusion of other joint farr ly properties I t ! ) I l I i I 1 n K.s / & !,'li,K,t / A.S No 81.) ot lO1.J and the decree passed without conside ring the entirety of- the (amily properties is unsustainable.

13. As can be seen lrom the grounds of appeal, the respondent No. l/ptaintiff filed implead petition in O.S.No.30 of 2002 betbre the V Additional District Court, Ranga Reddy Districr ar L.B.Nagar and the said suit was compromised between the parties. However, the respondent No.l/plaintiff had not taken any steps with regard to her share in the said suit i.e. O.S.No.30 of 2002. It is pertinent to note that these aspects were not part ofthe irnpugned j udgment. b) DEFENDA NT NO.s'S PROC EEDINGS:

14. It is pertinent to note that defendant No.5 did not contesr the suit before the trial Court. After passing of the impugned judgment, the defendant No.5 filed an interlocurory application vide I.A.No. 1048 of 2013 in O.S.No.344 of 200g by invoking order IX rule 13 of the Code of Civit procedure to set aside the exparte decree dated 28.03.2012. However, the said application was dismissed by the trial Courr on 24.10.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.5 rrled civil Revision petition before this 8 A-rli-&lr?KR,J \ S.No u15 of2013 Court and tlte same was allowed on i7'0.l '2022 b' this Court by sefting aside thc order dated 24.10.2014 passed b1' lre trial Court and accordirtgly l.A.No.l048 of 2013 was allowed' l'hus, in view of allowing, I.A.No.l048 of 2013, the exparte decree dated

28.03.2012 passed by the trial Court in O'S'No'34" of 2008 stood set aside. As a result, the delendant No.5 was giver rn opportunity to contest the suit befbre the trial Court. I5. During the course of arguments in the prese rl Appeal, both the parties t'xpressed consent for remanding back t r': matter to the trial Court lol fresh adjudication of the suit bi framing and deciding tht: rclevant issues. VII. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

16. The legat frame work in this regard may be n('riced as under: Order XLI Rule 23 of the Code of Civit Procedure ':an be invoked when a case has been disposed ofon a preliminarl point and the appellate coull reverses the decree, it may remanc llre case to the lower court lor further adjudication. Order XLI F:' le 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure comes into operation rr ltcn a case has -/ 9 N KS" J & l?KR, J A 5.No.s15 oJ 20 I-l been decided on merits and the appellate court believes further inquiry is necded, the case can be remanded. Order XLI Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked when the trial court omitted to frame or decide a material issue, the appellate court may direct the lower court to try the issue and submit findings

17. In the present case, having regard to the fact that defendant No.5 has not been permitted to contest the suit and since the question touching upon the inclusion of all joint f'amily properties and the validity of alienations were not adequately addressed, this court finds it appropriate that the matter be remanded for tiesh adjudication by the trial Court.

18. The trial court passed the preliminary decree only based on the pleadings and evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent No. l/plaintitf as the only evidence adduced on behalfof defendanr No.4 was eschewed for the reason that defendant No.4 did not present himself fbr cross cxamination. Thus, the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court is nothing but an exparte decree 10 /J<S, ,,I & L/RKR, J 4 5.No.315 of 2013

19. A per-rsal olentire material placed on record rr,.d considering the f-acts anrl circurnstances of the case, it is crystr I clear that the trial Court failed to consider rnaterial aspects i [rile passing preliminary decree. The trial Court also failed to l;ame relevant issues with 'egard to non joinder of other joint fhr rily properties. As stated supra, the defendant No,5 also got a righ to contest the suit by virttLc ol' orders passed in CRP No.l ot' l,rl5 and thus, defendant l''lo.-5 is at liberty to adduce neces.iu'y olal and documentary evidence in defence ol- his case

20. T'he leamed counsel for the delendant No.4 li1e d list of cases filed by the family members of Bhoodevamma (dt: l,..ndant No. l). A perusal ol the said list discloses that one Kistanrrta and others filed O.S.No.609 of 200 I on the file of I Additionir Senior Civil Judge, R.R.llistrict at L.B.Nagar seeking partition arrrl the said suit was dismisst:d on 31.12.2018. O.S.No.30 of 2001 rvas filed by Vindya Developers against Bhoodevamma and (,lhers seeking specific perfrrrmance of the agreement of sale and th ' said suit was comprornisec. One K. Bharat Kumar filed O.S.No.Si I of 2007 on the llte of III Additional District Court, R.R. Distric rt I-.B.Nagar 11 AXS,J&VRKR,.I A.S.No.8l5 of 2013 against K. Bhoodevamma and others for partition and the said suit was decreed. One Mrs. Punyavathi filed O.S.No.344 of 2008 on the I'ile of III Additional District Court, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar seeking partition against K. Bhoodevamma and others and the said suit was decreed but the same was challenged by M/s. Kedia Homes vide A.S.No.Sl5 ol2013, wherein stay was granted by the appellate couft. Mrs. Punyavathi filed O.S.No.460 of 2014 on the file of V Additional District Court, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar seeking partition and the said suit is pending. One Mrs. Bhavani filed O.S.No.88 of 2023 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Court, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar seeking declaration of sales deeds of lWs. Ajay Kumar Sushil Kumar, M/s. Kedia Homes Private Lirnited and Development Agreement of IWs. AGR as null and void and not binding on her. Mr. Bharat Kumar filed O.S.No.288 of 2025 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Rajendranagar against Ajay Kumar Sushil Kumar, M/s Kedia Homes Private Limited and M/s. Green Space (Govinda Reddy) seeking perpetual injunction and the said suit is pending. M/s. Ajay Kumar Sushil Kurnar and M/s. Kedia Homes Private 72 ,,1(S, ,,r & !7lKR, J {.S ivo 3.i.5 o/ ?Lrl3 '1 Limited filed O.S.No.335 of 2020 on the flle of IV Additional Senior Civil Court, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar seeiing iniunction against Mr. (. Bharat Kumar. Ws. Ajay Kumar Susrril Kumar and M/s. Kedia Homes Private Limited fited O.S.No.2(rt) of 2020 on the file of Principal District Court, R.R. Districr at l-.|).Nagar seeking declaration of Judgment and Decree in lr.S.No.884 of 2OO7 as null and void and not binding on the plainri ts and the said suit is pendirrg 21 . 1'hus, as per the contention of the learned ri,Lrnsel for the defendant Nc.4, atl these proceedings prima J'acic :;how, that the disputes amr,ng the heirs of late Laximnarayana inr olve nrultiple properties situated in various survey numbers ir puppalaguda Village. Thr're is no concrete material placed befbr,: this Court as to whether the above said suits were filed in respect rijoint family properties of late Laxnrinarayana and his family mc rrbers. 'fhus, the trial Court shall look into all these aspects by giv rrg reasonable opportunities to both the sides to the contest the proct.r,dings. 13 AKS,J&WKR,J A.S.No.al s oI20t 3

22. In view of the above facts and circumstances and since the trial Court failed to consider the contentions raised by defendant No.4 in the written statement about the alienations made by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of the defendant No.4 and as the exparte impugned decree is set aside vide order dated, 17 .01.2022 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CRp No.2 of 2015 and as it appears that several suits werc filed in respect ofjoint family properties of late Laxminarayana and his family members, this Court is of the considered opinion that the rnatter requires a fresh trial, wherein all relevant issucs can be framed and decided particularly those relating to the including of all joint family properties, the validity of alienations and the rights of all the parties including the defendant No.5. VI[. CONCLUSION: , I

23. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 28.03.2012 in O.S. No.344 of 2008 passed by the learned III Additional District Court (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District cannot be sustained and the sarne is accordingly set aside 14 ]K.S, ./ & YRKR, J ::.No-31.; o[ 2013 --*-1 IX. RESUI,T 24. This Appeal Suit is allowed and thereby rl t tnatter ts remanded to the learned III Additionat District Court 'I'(])' Ranga Reddy Distri,:t at L.B. Nagar' Ranga Reddy Dist' :t lbr lresh adjudication. The parties are at liberty to inclr tle all those propertics rvhich are liable for partition and not inclL rlcd earlier in the suit. l-ht: Trial Court shall lrame all necessar) rnd t'clevant issues, including those retating to non-.ioindcr of prolcrtics' afTold reasonable op'portur.rities to all the parties including d:lcndant No'5 and adjudicate the suit afresh strictly in accordance riith law' It is needless to nrention that the trial court shall not be irltltrcnced by any of the r:marks or observations made by this r'ourt in this appeat while adjudicating the rights of the parties afit: h' As a sequel, pending tniscellaneours applicati' rrrs' il any' in the appeal, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The lll Additional District Judge (FTC). Ranga Reddy t) strict at LB Nagar Z On. CC to Sri Chandrasen Liw Offices' Advocate [OP " :)l 3 O;" CC to Sri G Anandam, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Cof tes \lll., \ \ HIGH COURT DATED: 2610912025 JUDGMENT AS.No.815 oI 2013 ..:_1.:__ t;. ,l); \t ;1 I i8,l ;[75 a' !!. -/ 'i.. d ALLOWING THE APPEAL SUIT I Jtfl b 1,, d