ORDER :

This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.01-06-2017 in I.A.No.982 of 2013 in O.S.No.644 of 2013 of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. Petitioners herein are defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the said suit.

Plea of the respondent/plaintiff

3. The respondent herein filed the said suit against petitioners to declare that she and 5th petitioner are absolute owners of suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties and consequently to cancel the gift settlement deeds dt.18-05-2004 and 25-05-2004 executed by 1st petitioner in favour of 2nd petitioner and by 3rd petitioner in favour of 4th petitioner and also for recovery of possession of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties to respondent and 5th petitioner.

4. It is the contention of the respondent that one B.Radhamma was the owner of land in Sy.No.594 of extent Ac.10.08 gts; that she executed a registered Will in favour of biological father of respondent by name S.P.Bhaskar Rao on 02-02-1976 bequeathing all her property and also in favour of Smt.Indira Devi, Smt.Boodevi and Sri B.Ramachander Rao; that S.P.Bhaskar Rao gave registered G.P.A. in favour of his brother late B.Ramachander Rao on 26-04-1976; that respondent was gave in adoption by S.P.Bhaskar Rao to B.Ramachander Rao in 1963; and 5th petitioner, who is the son of M.Bhupathi Rao, was also adopted by B.Ramachander Rao. She contended that S.P.Bhaskara Rao died on 31-01-2010 and B.Ramachander Rao died on 06-04-2003 and that respondent succeeded to the property of S.P.Bhaskar Rao as per his Will dt.18-07-2009 and so she sought partition from the 5th petitioner.

5. She contended that 5th petitioner did not respond for partition and so respondent filed O.S.No.87 of 2011 before the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and the same is now transferred to the XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and is pending. She contended that she and the 5th petitioner had succeeded to the property of B.Radhamma and S.P. Bhaskar Rao.

6. She alleged that 1st petitioner executed a gift deed on 18-05-2004 in favour of 2nd petitioner in respect of ‘A’ schedule property claiming that ‘A’ schedule property was acquired by 1st petitioner towards his share in the ancestral property; 3rd petitioner executed gift deed on 25-05-2004 in favour of 4th petitioner in respect of ‘B’ schedule property and 3rd petitioner also claims that it is his ancestral property.

7. She alleged that petitioner Nos.1 and 3 do not have any right in ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties and they have brought into existence the said gift settlement deeds only to lay claim over the suit schedule properties. According to her, only herself and 5th petitioner are the original owners of the said property.

Plea of the petitioners/defendants

8. Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 filed a Written Statement opposing the suit claim. They contended that respondent had filed O.S.No.87 of 2011 before the District Judge, Malkajgiri, to which 5th petitioner is a party for partition of various properties including the property which is the subject matter of the instant suit. They contended that the instant suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 C.P.C.

9. They contended that 5th petitioner is the natural brother of M.Lakshmikantha Rao, father of 3rd petitioner and husband of 4th petitioner. They contended that 5th petitioner was taken in adoption by late B.Ramachander Rao and Smt.Bhoodevi and the later is the natural daughter of Smt.B.Radhamma, the original owner of the properties in Sy.No.594 of Alwal village. They contended that 1st petitioner is the father of 2nd petitioner and 2nd petitioner is also the daughter-in-law of late 4th petitioner.

10. According to them, late B.Ramachander Rao was taken as illatom son-in-law by B.Radhamma during her life time and she gave various properties in Alwal including the land in Sy.No.594, and his name was included as pattadar and possessor in Khasra Pahani for the ye