Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Pratibha - Appellant
Versus
Vedvathi - Respondent
Decided On : 07/12/2007
Case No : Civil Revision Petition No.4633 of 2006
Civil Procedure Code -Order VII Rule 11 - Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 - section 34(1) - schedule properties - Grant injunction - Sale Deed - plaintiffs and D2 are daughters of late and D1. during his life time established three businesses (a) M/s Textiles, (b) M/s. Advertisers (Hindustan Advertise) both and (c) Mens Bazar and earned name and fame in the business circles - Purchased house bearing, admeasuring and comprising an area of 400 square yards with his own earnings and funds, nominally in the name of his wife (D1) under a registered Sale Deed - At the time of purchasing the said property, it was only consisting of ground floor and after purchasing the same, first floor was constructed Item No.1 of the plaint schedule is the said building during his lifetime invested amounts in various banks, deposited money with different persons and also obtained insurance policies etc. The particulars of the amounts invested and policies taken by him have been detailed in item No.2 of the plaint schedule. During his life time, he desired to partition moveable and immoveable properties among the plaintiffs and defendants to avoid any misunderstandings in future. In that direction he gave second floor portion of item No.1 to the plaintiff No.1 tentatively towards her share – Held Plaint pleadings as extracted in the aforesaid paragraphs do not give any scope for ambiguity to the fact that divided his properties during his life time and allotted second floor of item No.1 to the plaintiff No.1. Of course the plaintiffs pleaded that the partitions are tentative and plaintiff No.1 accepted the 2nd floor portion of item No.1 to her share to respect the feelings of her father. Whatsoever it may be, there was a division of property of during his lifetime and the said division of second floor of item No.1 fell to the share of plaintiff No.1. regard to moveable properties mentioned in item No.2, the properties are no more, since they passed on to the hands of 1st defendant as a nominee for various FDRs and insurance policies -Trial Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are liable to pay the Court fee under section 34 (1) of the Act. The order impugned in the Civil Revision Petition does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety warranting interference of this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed
1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order dated 8.8.2006 passed in I.A.No.1863 of 2006 in O.S.No.182 of 2006 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby and where under the learned Chief Judge directed the plaintiffs to pay Court fee under section 34(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short Act).
2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and whereas R1 and R2 are D1 and D2 respectively in O.S.No.182 of 2006. The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:
“i) That a preliminary decree may be passed to the effect that the plaintiffs are entitled for half share in the suit schedule properties along with defendant Nos.1 and 2;
ii) Directing the division of the item No.1 of plaint schedule property into four equal share and allotment of one such share to the plaintiff No.1 and another to the plaintiff No.2 and put them in separate possession;
iii) Directing the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to provide half share in the item Nos.2 to 5 of the plaint schedule properties towards the share of the plaintiffs;
iv) Directing the defendant No.1 to settle the share of the plaintiffs from the rental income of item No.1 of the plaint schedule and from income of item No.5 business for the period from 28.6.2005 till the filing of suit and for the period subsequent to the filing of the suit till the date of realization;
v) Grant injunction against the defendant No.1 or any body acting and claiming under her from alienating or transferring item No.1 of the suit schedule property;
vi) Directing the defendants to pay costs of the suit and
vii) Granting such other and further reliefs to which the plaintiffs are entitled in the circumstances of the case.”
3. It is averred in the plaint that plaintiffs and D2 are daughters of late Shyam Sunder Tippanna Naneker and D1. Sri. Shyam Sunder Tippanna Naneker during his life time established three businesses (a) M/s Suresh Textiles, (b) M/s.H.A. Advertisers (Hindustan Advertise) both at Tilak Road, Hyderabad and (c) M/s Mens Bazar, at New Marketing Complex, Tilak Road, Hyderabad and earned name and fame in the business circles. He purchased the house bearing H.No.1-2-234/13, admeasuring and comprising an area of 400 square yards situated at Gagan Mahal, Domalguda, Hyderabad, with his own earnings and funds, nominally in the name of his wife Smt. Vedavathi (D1) under a registered Sale Deed dated 30.4.1987. At the time of purchasing the said property, it was only consisting of ground floor and after purchasing the same, first floor was constructed by Sri.Shyam Sunder Tippanna Nanekar. Item No.1 of the plaint schedule is the said building. Sri. Shyam Sunder Tippanna Nanekar during his lifetime invested amounts in various banks, deposited money with different persons and also obtained insurance policies etc. The particulars of the amounts invested and policies taken by him have been detailed in item No.2 of the plaint schedule. During his life time, he desired to partition moveable and immoveable properties among the plaintiffs and defendants to avoid any misunderstandings in future. In that direction he gave second floor portion of item No.1 to the plaintiff No.1 tentatively towards her share. The plaintiff No.1 in order to respect the feelings of her father occupied the said portion and started residing in the same along with her family during the lifetime of her father and rendered selfless service to her father. Sri. Shyam Sunder Tippanna Naneker died on 27.6.2005 leaving behind him the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2. D1 encashed the FDR’s left by Sri. Shyam Sunder Tippanna Naneker to the tune of Rs.12,38,319/- much before the maturity date. D2 also took away the said amounts along with cash, gold and silver items. The plaintiffs through friends of their father tried to persuade D1 to settle the properties. But their efforts did not yield any fruitful results. Therefore, they resorted to file the suit for partition with th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.