J. Kalyan Kumar v. Smt. J. Gayathri,

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENry NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V, BHASKAR REDDY clvll REVISION PETITION NO: 2928 OF 2023 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated 01-08-2023 in lA No. 249 ot 2023 in OS No. 105 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal. Between:

J. Kalyan Kumar, S/o J. Raghanvendhara Rao, Age- 42 yeas, Occ.- Business, PJo. 14-107119, New Bus Stand, leeja Village and Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

...Petitioner/Respondent No.8

AND

1. Smt. J. Gayathri,, D/o.Late J. Raghavendra Rao, Wo. Anil Kumar, Aged about 34 years, Occupation- House Wife and Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 1-'12V92, Venu Colony, Gadwal Tow, Jogulamba Gadwal District. No.13

2. J. Jankamma (Died), Nagarkurnool District

3. J. Suguna, Wo J. Vijaya Rao, Age- 59 years, Occ- Govt., Employee, R/o H.No2-65, Owsaligalli, Near Navatha Transport, Achampeta Town, Nagarkurnool District.

4. J. Shilpa, D/o Vijaya Rao, Age- 32 yeas, Occ- House wife, R/o H.No.2-65, Owsaligalli, Neai Navatha Tiansport, Achampeta Town, Nagarkurnool District

5. J. Chiranjivi, S/o Vijaya Rao, Age.-31 years. Occ.- Student. R/o H.No.2-65, Owsaligalli, Near Navatha Transport, Achampeta Town, Nagarkurnool District

6. J. Priyanka, D/o J. Vijaya Rao, Age.- 29 years, Occ.- Student, R/o H.\o.]-6.5, Owsdligalli,' Near Navaiha Trahsflort, Achampeta Town, Nagarkumool District

7. J. Narsing Rao, S/o J. Raghanvendhara Rao, Age.- 60 years, Occ.- Govt.,Employee, R/o office of the Thasildahr, Lingala. B- J. Sudhkar Rao, S/o J. Raghanvendhara Rao, Age.- 57 years, Occ.- Pvt. Employee, R/o H.No.15-1 f0, Bharma Veedi, leeja, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

9. J. Raju, S/o J. Raghanvendhara Rao, Age.- 40 yeas, Occ.- Business, R/o 14107119, New Bus Stand, leeja, Jogulamba Gadwal District. 10.J.Vijaya Laxmi, D/o. Late J Raghavendra Rao, Wo Ravi Kumar, Age.- 47 yeais, Occ.- House wife, R/o.Raichur Town and Raichur Dlstrict.

11. JKalpana @_ Sandhya, D/o. Late J. Raghavendra Rao, W/o Nagabhshan Rao,Age-- 55 years, Occ.- House wife, R/o 1 Cross, yadlapur, Shakthinagar Post, Raichur District.

12. Surekha, D/o. Late J Raghavendra Rao, Wo Maruthi Rao,Age._ 43 yeas, Occ.- House wife, R/o Near Bus Stand, Shankthi Nagar, niic"trur Disirict.' 13.J. Bhemsenjaq, 9/S J Ra_ghavendra Rao, Age._ 58 years, Occ._ R.T.C. Bus Conductor, R/o A. P. S. R.T. C-. Depo., Narayindet. 14.Boya Hanum_anthu, S/o Basanna Ag.. . ll years, Occ._ Agriculture, R/o leeja village and Mandal, Jogulamba Gadi,val Disirict.

15. Boya Savari, S/o Basanna, Age- 36 years, Occ.- Agriculture, R/o leeja village and Mandal, Jogulambi Gadw'al Disirict. 16.Smt S.unkulamma, Wo, Keshanna, A_ge. 75 years, Occ._ Agriculture, Rl/o leeja village and Mandal, Jogulambb dadwal bistrict.

17. Boya Chinna Thimmappa,. S/o.Keshanna, Age.- 43 years, Occ._ Agriculture, r-(/o leeja vt age and Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

18. Boya Anjaneyulu, S/o Keshanna, Age -.aJ years, Occ._ Agriculture, R/o leeja village and Mandal, Jogulamba Gad-wal Disirict. '19. Govindhamma, W/o Boya pedda Thimmappa, Age._ 50 years, Occ._ Agrncutrure, F(/o teeJa village and Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. 20 A?_ry9l!rti. D/o Boya.Pedda Thimmappa, Age.- 34 years, Occ.- Agricutrure, K/o tee1a vt age and Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal Disirict. 21 lr!.\?,D,!" Boya Pedda.Thimmappa, 4Se.- SZ years, Occ._ Agricutture, R/o reeja vt age and Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. 22 l1ly1,,Pt9 Boyq fe{09 Thimmappa, Ase.- 29 years, Occ._ Agritcutture, R/o teeja vtilage anct Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal Diahict. (R2 to R22 not necessary parties)

...Respondents

lA NO: 1 OF 2o23 Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the-affidavit filed in support of.the petition, inJHigt' court may be pleased to stay allfurtherproceedingsinosNo. 10sof 2ol4,onthefileof theAdditional senior Civil Judge at Gadwal.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. pOTTIGARI SRIDHAR REDDY Gounsel for the Respondents: Sri. CH. RAVINDER The Court made the foltowing: ORDER

.,r'

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No-2928 oF 20.23 ORDER:

Aggrieved by the order dated Ol.Og.2O23 passed in LA.No.249 of 2023 in O.S.No. 10 S of 2014, by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge at Gadwal, the present Civil Revision Petition is hled.

2.

The petitioner is plaintiff No.g in the suit. The respondent No. i herein had hled I.A.No.249 of 2023 in O.S.No. tO5 of 2Ot4 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, under Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of CpC, seeking to implead him as plaintiff No. 13 in the suit. The Court below allowed the said application impleading the respondent No.1 herein as plaintiff No. 13 in the suit.

3.

The case of the respondent No.l/piaintiff No. 13 is that her father Sri J.Raghavendra Rao had six (6) sons and four (4) daughters, died intestate leaving his wife Smt.J.Janakamma and his children as his Iegal heirs. It is the case of the respondent No. l/plaintiff No.13 that Sri J.Vijaya Rao. who is elder son of Sri J.Raghavendra Rao, died ir-rtestate reaving behind respondents/defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and even though respondent No. 1/plaintiff No. 13 is having succession rights in

-il?i-- the joint family, she was not impleaded as a party in O.S.No. 105 of 2014. Therefore, she hled an application to implead her as plaintiff No. 13 and the same was ailowed.

4.

Sri Ch.Ravinder, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.l herein has vehemently contended that the petitioner herein and others have instituted the said suit without impleading the respondent/plaintiff No. 13 as part5r in th-e suit.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that even if respondent No.1 herein had aly semblance of right, she could not be impleaded as a plaintiff in the suit.

6.

Since it is a settled law that all the co_sharers are entitled for a share in the joint family property by impleading themselves as either plaintiff or defendant in the suit, there is no illegality or irregularit5r committed by the Court below in allowing the application filed by respondent No. 1/plaintiff No.l3. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion under Article 227 of ttle Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order dated 01.O8.2O23 passed by the Court below in I.A.No.249 of 2023 in O.S.No. 105 of 2Ot4.

a 7 .

Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed. It is needless to mention that the petitioner herein is entitled to agitate a1l his contentions in the subject suit, when the same is taken up for hearing. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

R //TRUE COPYII ASSrsrfNTRvi&Y[X To, i ili ilii:3!,T3'i+,:xii[1%ntBrffi !" ^ I 91" !! to snr cH RAVTNDEH;;;;;ilid;rjd

4. two CD Copies SECTION OFFICER dvocate IOpUCI PSR/JAK s

HIGH COURT DATED:2911212023 ( 1t\E gtA lt-5.

z c J t) 2 3 JA!,l m24 * * 9es PATCT{

ORDER

CRP.No.2928 of 2023 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

@d ")b