w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Kavali Nirmalamma & Others v/s Kailas Industrial Gages Ltd. & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- V. K. INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100MH2004PLC149538

Company & Directors' Information:- R K INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29300PB1996PLC017836

Company & Directors' Information:- V T INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74990TN2010PLC078041

Company & Directors' Information:- B P INDUSTRIAL CORPN. PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15312UP1973PTC087037

Company & Directors' Information:- A V A INDUSTRIAL CORPN PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29191TZ1956PTC000261

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15420MH1921PTC000947

Company & Directors' Information:- D D INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34102DL2006PTC156978

Company & Directors' Information:- A K INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29130PN2014PTC151053

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00804KA1948PLC000529

    Civil Revision Petition No. 328 of 2020

    Decided On, 16 June 2020

    At, High Court of for the State of Telangana

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

    For the Petitioners: Khaja Moizuddin, Advocate. For the Respondents: ---------



Judgment Text


1. Challenging the order dated 19.12.2019 passed in CFR No.2623 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, the petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The factual scenario behind the present litigation is that the petitioners themselves have filed O.S.No.27 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, for partition and separate possession, claiming that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the daughters and only son of one Gangaiah who inherited the suit schedule property of Ac.5-07 gutnas in Sy.No.440 situated at Gandigudem village, Sangareddy District, from his father. Hence they claim that they are having 1/4th share in their ancestral land as coparceners along with their brother and sister namely B. Balraj and Manne Laxmamma @ Jayamma. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the first defendant in the said suit created a document in favour of the 5th defendant in the suit by showing the name of the father of the plaintiffs as executant in respect of the suit schedule property in order to deprive the shares of the plaintiffs. It is further contended that in the said suit, the petitioners have got an order of status quo in respect of the suit schedule property.

3. Now the petitioners filed the present unnumbered suit before the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, seeking a declaration of certain sale deeds and AGPA are null and void contending that the first defendant in the present suit, who is the 5th defendant in the earlier suit i.e.O.S.No.27 of 2019, executed a sale deed in favour of 2nd defendant and that the 2nd defendant has executed sale deed in favour of 3rd defendant.

4. Upon tendering the suit, the trial Court took as many as four objections, out of which, two objections were complied with. However, for the remaining two objections, the petitioners gave their reasonings.

5. The Court below, on perusing the answers given by the petitioners and upon perusing the documents and plaint in O.S.No.27 of 2019, observed that the defendants in the present suit were not made parties to the earlier suit. The Court below further observed that the reliefs sought for in the present suit could be the ancillary relief in the partition suit and accordingly returned the plaint for presentation before the proper Court, by order dated 19.12.2019. As stated supra, aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

7. As seen from the record, it is to be observed that in any partition suit the purchaser of ancestral property is necessary party and in absence of such necessary party, the partition suit cannot be adjudicated. The petitioners did not take steps to implead the defendants in the present suit as parties in the earlier suit i.e. O.S.No.27 of 2019 since they are the purchasers of the suit schedule properties. If the petitioners succeed in the earlier suit O.S.No.27 of 2019, the petitioners will always be at liberty to seek declaration of cancellation of the subsequent documents alleged to have been executed by the first defendant as null and void on the ground of lis pendense along with the partition suit. But without getting a decree in their favour about their entitlement, the petitioners cannot seek declaration of cancellation of the documents. Therefore, instead of filing a separate suit the petitioners are always at liberty to seek a consequential relief in the main suit itself by impleading all necessary parties.

8. I see no irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order warranting interference of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. In the light of the above discussion, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed upholding the order dated

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

19.12.2019 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, giving liberty to the petitioners to take steps in the earlier suit i.e. O.S.No.27 of 2019 pending on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Sangareddy i.e. to seek consequential relief and challenge the same before that Court itself. 10. Pending miscellaneous petition, if any, in this CRP, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
O R