The High Court · 2025

1 . Venishetty Srinivas, S/o. Late Venishetty Venkatesham, Age 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.2-2-101, BhagwanGally, Kasba Gally, Nizamabad.

2. Venishetty Krishnaveni, Wo. Venishetty Srinivas, Age:39 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.2-2-101 , Bhagwan Gaily, Kasba Gaily, Nizamabad. ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

3. K.Shobha, Wo. Late K. Srinivas, Age: 60 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Kanteshwar Appartment, Opp. To Mukka Ayodhya school, Gupanpally, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad.

4. Ch.Padma, W/o. tvlallikarjun, Age:58 years, Occ: Housewife, C/o. Crane Vakkapodi, Devi Road, Nizamabad.

5. R.Lalitha, Wo. Nagabhushanam, Age: 55 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. BSNL back office and Swagath Hotel back side, Chandranagar, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Proposed Defendants lA NO: 'l OF 2024 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 stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.51 of 2016 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, at Nizamabad till disposal of this civil revision petition. I I Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Padala Pravin Kumar Counsel forthe Respondents: Sri G. Akul Reddy, representing Sri G. Anandam The Court made the following: ORDER a /, l I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI C.R.P.No.3 86 oJ 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed assailing the order dated 06.08.2024 in I.A.No.226 of 2024 in O.S.No.51 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Nizamabad.

2. Heard Sri Padala Pravin Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri G. Akul Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri G. Anandam, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The relevant facts in brief are that, the revision petitioner/plaintiff had filed the suit seeking partition of a house property. The suit schedule property originally belongs to the father of the revision petitioner and respondent No.1/defendant No.1. As per the revision petitioner, during the life time of their father, on

27.O7.2007 in the presence of elders a Faisal Nama was prepared, wherein the suit schedule property has been given equally to him and his brother/respondent No.1. Though the suit schedule property and other properties were partitioned, they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the house property. However, after the death of their father, as the respondent No.1 continued the possession, the petitioner/plaintiff filed suit without showing the sisters respondent Nos.3 to S/proposed defendants, who are the siblings of the revision ,petitioner and respondent No.1 as the suit claim is based on the I -l : 5 I l 2 Faisal Nama alone. However, claiming that as the partition of the suit schedule property was in the presence of the sisters, who are otherwise entitled for a share, would be proper parties, an application was filed under Order I Rule 10 (2) CpC for their impleadment.

4. The trial Court observing that the entire suit was centered on Faisal Nama and that no interest has been granted to respondent Nos.3 to S/proposed defendants, held that they are not proper and necessary parties to the suit, dismissed the petition. That order came to be challenged in the present revision petition.

5. Learned counser for the revision petitioner wourd submit that proposed parties are the sisters and as the property remained un- partitioned between the revision petitioner and respondent No.1 basing on Faisal Nama, the presence of sisters would be proper to conclude the issue and to avoid any future litigation. Further asserted that the respondents/proposed defendant Nos.3 to 5 are not craiming right over the property. By considering their submissions, in pragmatic view the Court below ought to have impleaded the proposed parties in the suit. Thus, to rectify the error, prayed for interference. 6' Learned counser for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 wourd submit that the revision petitioner/praintiff is craiming right over the property basing on Faisal Nama. A defence has been set out in the written I ) ) i 3 statement that the property was sold by their father in favour of respondent No.1 and his wife i'e' respondent No'2' Further' he has disputed the Faisal Nama and it is a forged document' Howsoever' as the dispute is between the revision petitioner and respondent Nos' 1 and 2 impleadment of sisters i'e' respondent Nos'3 to 5 would be unnecessary and the trial Court rightly considered the facts and passed the impugned order that they are not proper and necessary parties. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition'

7. I have perused the material available on record'

8. The facts that the suit schedule propelty belongs to the father of revision petitloner/plaintiff and respondent No' 1/defendant and proposed parties/respondent Nos'3 to 5 is undisputed fact' The revision petitioner is claiming exclusive interest over the property basing on Faisal Nama. On the other hand, respondent Nos'1 and 2 are claiming title over the suit schedule property basing on the sale Faisal Nama proposed by the revision deed and denying the petitioner/blaintiff. It is clear by the pleadings that the execution of Faisal Nama is 9. in dispute and also the sale proposed by the respondent Nos'1 and 2' If the claim of the revision petitioner and respondent Nos'1 and 2/ defendant Nos.1 and 2 fails, the intestate succession would be the ,option. In such case and along with sons' the proposed I I I .-..-.-.!|r'...-..aal-rb ."rd I 4 parties/respondent Nos.3 to 5 would have rights and intent over the I,^ property. In this view, subject to the proof of revision petitioners case oF execution of Faisal Nama by his father and the defences raised by the respondent No.l/defendant No.1, the proposed parties wourd be proper parties for adjudication of the suit For partition. That being the position, the triar court ought to have positivery considered the application and extend an opportunity to the proposed parties to place their claims, in the interest of justice.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside by allowing the proposed parties/respondent Nos.3 to 5 on to record as defendant Nos.3 to 5. Accordingly, the I.A.No.226 of 2024 on the file of the principal Senior Civil Judge, at Nizamabad stands allowed.

11. In the result, the Civil Revision petition is allowed without costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. \ To, //TRUE COPYi/ Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR I :SECTION OF FICER

1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Nizamabad ,- -. .- 2. One CC to Sri Padala Pravin Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri G. Anandam, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies +p i i HIGH COURT DATED:0710212025 .) ) .$ s* J3 o,} ).^ ) * o {., ORDER CRP.No.3586 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION I i I @ t I