THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.02 AND 04 OF 2022

COMMON ORDER:

1. Both the CRPs are filed by the petitioners – defendant Nos.4 and 5 aggrieved by the common order dated 10.03.2020 passed in I.A.Nos.2013 and 2014 of 2017 in O.S.No.972 of 2017 by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”).

2. Since both the civil revision petitions arise out of the same impugned common order passed in I.A.Nos.2013 and 2014 of 2017, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.

3. The petitioners are defendant Nos.4 and 5 and respondent Nos.1 to 6 are the plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, the ranks of the parties as referred in the original suit is maintained.

4. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.972 of 2017 on the file of XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad for partition, rendition of accounts and for declaration of will deed bearing document No.105 of 1999 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 filed written statement. During the pendency of the Suit, defendant Nos.4 and 5 filed I.A.No.2014 of 2017 under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) seeking to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by law and is barred by limitation and also I.A.No.2013 of 2017 under Section 11(2) of A.P.Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 seeking to direct the plaintiffs to pay the Court fee of Rs.6,40,540/- besides Court fee on notional valuation on the relief of rendition of accounts.

5. In I.A.No.2014 of 2017, it is submitted by defendant Nos.4 and 5 that the suit is filed for partition of suit schedule A to I properties by metes and bounds and to declare Will Deed document No.105 of 1999 dated 20.07.1999 executed by late Vishandas Talreja as null and void and not binding on the parties. A-Schedule Property stood in the name of Vishandas Talreja devolved on defendant Nos.4 and 5. Defendant No.4 executed registered gift settlement deed in favour of defendant No.5 and the property is exclusively of defendant No.5. As on the date of Suit, Schedule B, D and F properties, do not stand in the name of parties to Suit, as such, the Suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. It is further submitted that there is a registered release deed in respect of Schedule A and B Properties and no declaration is sought to declare the registered release deed as void, as such, the suit is not maintainable. G-Schedule Property was acquired under sale deed vide document No.459 of 2006 dated 10.03.2006 in the name of defendant Nos.4 and 5, no declaration is sought to declare that the sale deed is for the benefit of joint family or as joint family property. Defendant No.4 executed a registered gift settlement deed vide document No.1782 of 2016 dated 22.03.2006 gifting his share in G- Schedule Property in favour of defendant No.5. H-Schedule Property was acquired by way of registered sale deed vide document No.1263 of 1992 dated 14.05.1992 in the names of defendant Nos.4 and 5. Subsequently, defendant No.5 executed registered gift settlement deed dated 22.03.2016 vide document No.1159 of 2016 and thus, defendant No.4 is the exclusive owner of this property. The properties are in individual names and the valuation made and the Court Fee paid thereon is not proper. It is further submitted that I-Schedule Property is an industry which exclusively stands in the name of Chandragupta Talreja and his son Ashok Kumar Talreja since 2016. Prior to that, defendant Nos.4 and 5 were partners since 1999. The suit is not maintainable as the declaration is not sought. Without even going into the evidence, the very documents filed by plaintiffs, along with the plaint, and the pleadings in the suit would show that the suit is barred by limitation. It is also submitted that so far as D to E schedule properties are concerned, the very acquisition of the properties is in the name of i