IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that shareholders in a partition suit have a right to preemption and must be offered the opportunity to purchase their shares at a determined valuation before auction.

ORDER :

The instant Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the Court of the IX Additional Court Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Court below) in I.A.No.775 of 2023 in O.S.No.19 of 2003.

2. Heard Mr. B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mohd. Murtuza Ali, party-in-person for respondent No.1, and Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3, 7, 8, 12, 16, 18, 19 and 20 to 23.

3. Vide the said impugned order, the Court below has allowed the petition filed by the plaintiff under Section 2 of the Partition Act read with Section 75 of CPC vide I.A.No.775 of 2023. While allowing the said I.A., the Court below allowed appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to sell the schedule A and schedule B properties by way of public action.

4. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the instant Civil Revision Petition are that the plaintiff had filed O.S.No.19 of 2003 seeking for partition so far as schedule A and schedule B properties are concerned. The aforesaid Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 15.06.2016 and preliminary decree was passed allotting 1/8th share in schedule A and schedule B property in favour of the plaintiff as well as defendant Nos.2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 and 1/16th share each to defendant Nos.1, 3, 7 and 19. Schedule A property is house No.16-3-994/1 measuring 800 square yards at Malakpet, Hyderabad opposite to printing press. Schedule B property is house No.3-2-739 to 3-2-744 measuring 600-700 square yards at Chappal Bazar, Hyderabad.

5. Petitioners/defendant Nos.6 and 8 aggrieved of the preliminary decree filed an appeal vide C.C.C.A. No.233 of 2016 before this High Court which stood dismissed on 10.06.2022 upholding judgment and decree passed by the Court below. Subsequent to dismissal of the appeal, an I.A. was filed i.e. I.A.No.1623 of 2016 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner which stood allowed on 20.03.2016. One Mr. D.Chandrashekar Reddy was appointed as the Advocate Commissioner, who in turn submitted his report on 30.05.2017. Meanwhile, the final decree was passed pursuant to I.A.No.1623 of 2016 and while passing the final decree, the Court below accepting the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner held that the Suit schedule A and B properties were not divisible as per the preliminary decree with metes and bounds, therefore, it was advised for putting the property on sale in public auction and the sale proceeds to be divided among all the parties. Subsequently, the instant I.A. i.e. I.A.No.775 of 2023 under Section 2 of the Partition Act read with Section 75 of CPC has been filed seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for selling the Suit schedule A and B properties and for division of the sale proceeds accordingly among the parties. It was this I.A. which stands allowed and against which the instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

6. It was the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the Court below failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioners herein ought to have been given the right to preemption and permission to purchase the shares from other co-owners. The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed on behalf of the defendant Nos.6 and 8 who have also been awarded equal share as that what has been awarded to the plaintiff i.e. 1/8th of the share in the Suit schedule property.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners was contending that the Suit schedule property is in possession of the family members of the petitioners including that of the plaintiff for the last more than seventy (70) years. It was further contended that one of the floors in the Suit schedule A property was constructed by respondent No.8 out of his own funds which is also reflected in the Court proceedings. In addition, since it is in their possession fo