Rachakonda Nageswara Rao, v. Medarimetla Somaiah,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1631 OF 2016 DATED:01-04-2016 Between:
Rachakonda Nageswara Rao and others ... Petitioners And Medarimetla Somaiah and others ... Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: Mr. R. Radha Krishna Reddy COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: -
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order dt.04.12.2015 in T.O.P. No.949 of 2015, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Guntur.
One Mr.M. Seethaiah was the ancestor. He had two sons and four daughters. Petitioner No.2 and respondent No.1 are the two sons of the said Seethaiah. After the death of Seethaiah, his two sons partitioned an extent of Ac.1.04 cents of land in equal shares. However, petitioner No.2 and his mother entered into another partition deed on 30.08.2003 as per which the property was divided into three shares and one share was given to his mother and 1/3rd each was allotted to petitioner No.2 and respondent No.1. Significantly, respondent No.1 was not a party to the said partition deed. Feeling aggrieved by the partition deed dt.30.08.2003, executed behind his back, respondent No.1 has filed O.S. No.545 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, for cancellation of the partition deed dt.30.08.2003. Meanwhile, petitioner Nos.
2 to 5 have sold Acs.0.261⁄2 cents to petitioner No.1. By judgment and decree dt.30.9.2009 the said suit was decreed. Questioning the same, petitioner Nos.2 to 5 have filed A.S. No.66 of 2010. Petitioner No.1 got impleaded himself as an appellant in the said appeal and the said appeal was allowed and the suit was remanded by the District Court for fresh disposal, by judgment dt.1.11.2012. While the said suit, after remand, was pending, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have filed O.S. 276 of 2015 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Guntur, for reliefs such as cancellation of partition deed dt.29.01.2002 and delivery of Ac.0.171⁄2 cents allegedly covered by the sale deed executed by petitioner No.
favour of respondent No.1 etc. The petitioners filed T.O.P. No.949 of 2015 under Section 24 of CPC, in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Guntur, for transfer of O.S. No.545 of 2003 to the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Guntur, to be tried along with O.S.276 of 2015. This petition was dismissed by the learned District Judge.
Feeling aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful petitioners filed this civil revision petition. After hearing Mr. R. Radhakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the lower Court has arrived at a right conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled for transfer of O.S. No.545 of 2003. As rightly observed by the lower Court, O.S. No.545 of 2003 was initially decreed as far back as 30.9.2009, while the later suit was filed by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 as late as 2015, much after A.S. No.66 of 2010 was disposed of and O.S. No.545 of 2003 was remanded for fresh disposal. Petitioner No.1 was not even a party to O.S. No.545 of 2003 and it was only for the first time that he has got himself impleaded in A.S. No.66 of 2010 as a purchaser of a part of the subject property. Moreover, while O.S.No.
545 of 2003 pertains to Ac.0.50.2 cents, O.S. No.276 of 2015 was confined only to Ac.0.171⁄2 cents property said to have been sold by petitioner No.2 to petitioner No.1. In the face of all these facts, the lower Court has rightly held that O.S. No.545 of 2003 need not be transferred for being tried along with O.S. No.276 of 2015, though there may arise conflicting decisions if they are decided separately. In any event, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 having filed their suit - O.S. No.276 of 2015 at their leisure almost twelve years after filing of O.S. N.545 of 2003 and that too after its remand, are bound to run the risk of the possibility of conflicting decisions. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any error in the order of the lower Court and the civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P. No.2063 of 2016 shall stand disposed of as infructuous. _______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 01-04-2016 bnr