Smt. N. Maisamma v. Smt. S. Vijayalaxmi

\

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:3568 0F Petition under Anicle 227 of the constitution of lndia, against the order dated 28.o8.2o23inl.A.No.117ot2O23ino.S.No'44TSof2o22onthefileofthe court of the vll Additional Junior civil Jridge, city civil court at Hyderabad. Between:

1. Smt. N. Maisamma, Wo Late N. Yatrajam, aged -about 8] . years' " OiC Uousenold, Rl/o. H. No. 9-3-55/2, Compahy Bagh, MD Lines' Golconda' Hyderabad - 500008, Telangana.

2 N. Shvam Kumar. S/o. Late N. Yatraiam, aged about 50 years, Occ Private Service, Ryo. Flat No. G4, Pleasant Pearl Apartments, Near Fon vlew' HyAeisnatote, Ga ndi pet Mand al, Rangareddy District 50009 1'

3. Smt. D. Rajkumari Deshpande, D-/o. .Late N'. Yatrajam' W/o' .Hemanth - Deshoande. Aqed about 4b years, Occ Household, R/o' C/o' Shobha Gopal G;ifiil el, oiA1, indratot< socieiv, Tadiwala Road, Near Nandadeep Hotel' Pune, Maharashtra.

(Petitionerland3areRepresentedbytheirSPAHolderPetitionerNo.2 herein)

...Petitioners/Pettioners/Defendant No.1 to 3

AND

1. Srnt. S. Vijayalaxmi, D/o. Late N. Yatrgja.m, !/9. -Sr.la.tyanarayana' Aged aoort Oz yeirs, Occ Housewife, R/o. H. No. 9-1-34114157, Bapu Nagar, Langar House, HYderabad, TS ...'RespondenURespodenUPlantiff

2. Mr. Saleem, S/o. Not known' C/o. HKGN, Property Dealing Office, N-ear Shah -' ir/asiiO AuiHing, Ahmad Nagar, M.D. Lines, Behind Mozine Bakery, Company Bagh, Golconda Post HYd 500008 (Respordent No.2 is not necessary party ...RespondenURespondenUDefendant No.4

IA 120F 2o23 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. 4475 of 2O22 on the file of the Vll Additional Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. And pass IA NO:1OF 2O23 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 permit Petitioner No.2 as SPA holder to act on behalf of the Petitioners / Petitioners No. 1 AND 3 in the present matter in the interest oF justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI NARAYANDAS SANJAY Counsel for the Respondents: none appeared The Court made the following: ORDER

-/ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY CTVILREUI$ON PEEIION No.3568 of2O23 ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the learned VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, in I.A.No. 117 of 2023 in O.S.No.4475 of 2022.

2.

Heard Sri Narayandas Sanjay, learned counsel for the petrtloners.

3.

Vide the said impugned order, the Court below has dismissed thc application filed bv the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11(a) (b) and (d) of CPC who are the defendants before the Court below' 4.

At the outset, this Court is of thc firm view that the present being a civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India, it is only the jurisdictionai error or perversitlr on the factual aspects which needs to be considered by this Court and the petitioner has not made out case of any jurisdictional error in the present case' 5.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petilioners assailing the impugned order is that the finding given by the Court below does not match with the decision laid down by the Hon'ble SupremeCourtinthecaseofChurchotChrtstCh(rrltahleTntst

* I cnd Educatlonal Chartteble Societg Versus Ponniamman Educo.tionol Trustl. He further submits that the cause of action itself has not been specifically spelt out in the case and on account of non-disclosure of the cause of action, the same could not have been entertained by the Court below.

6.

However, perusal of records would clearly indicate that the petitioners and respondent inter se are members of the same farnily and the present Original Suit is one which has been hled by the respondent/plaintiff Seeking for partition and separate possession to the extent of share that would fall upon ttre plaintiff and also for declaring the registered gift settlement deed dated 15.03.2016 as null and void and binding on the plaintiff.

7.

Considering the contents of the plaint and also taking int<r consideration the observations made by the Cor-rrt below while dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11{a} (b) and (d) of CPC, this Court is of the considered opinion that no strong case as such has been made out by the petitioners calling for interference to the said lindings.

8.

As regards the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioners in the case of Church o:f Chrtst Charitable T?ust qnd Educatlonal Charitable Socletg (1 supra), this Court is I (2012) supreme Court Cases 706 /--''

of the considered opinion that the said judgment is laid down under an entirely different contextual backdrop where the Original Suit was one under the provisions of Specific Relief Act and the Suit being for specific performance of an agreement. Unlike, in the present case wh6re the Original Suit is for partition of the family property and where the plaintiff and the defendants both are members of the same family.

g.

For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioners calling for interference with the impugned order.

10, The present Civil Revision Petition accordingly stands rejected' No order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

t_ SD/.B. CHANDRA PRAKASH ASSISTANT RE ISTRAR /,TRUE COPY// SECTION FFICER To.

'-'.,. Thu Vll Additional Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hvderabad , U#;&;iRl. NARAYANDAs sANJAY Advocate [oPUc] 3, O.tS,8t*SRl' AdvEsat&{e8uc} !. Two CD CoPies MY YY'

HIGH COURT DATED:21 11212023

ORDER

CRP.No.3568 ot 2O23 o 1HE -q.t4 ,16'

!a k st'

J 1 3 flAn 202,r 1-r REJECTING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS a{le4 D#-