Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Telangana) 45927
II
il
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
cITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 85 OF 2021
...PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT No. 1 & 2/RESPONDENTS
Appeal Under Section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated
07.03.2019 made in OS No. 153 ot 2017 on the file of the Court of the XXVil
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad.
Between:
1. D. Mosses Paul, S/o. Late D. Francis Paul, Aged about 54 years, Occ. pSU
Employge, Flat No. 2O4 and 201, Serene R-oyale Apartments, H.No 12-5-
14916. Plot No. 91, Vijayapuri Colony, Batukamakunta, South Lalaguda,
Secunderabad 500 017.
2. Smt. D Jamima Gladys Paul, W/o. N.R.Stephen, Aged about 52 years, R./o.
H.No. Flat No. 204 and 201, Serene Royaie Apartirents. H.No.12-5-j 4916,
Plot ryo 9 ! , Vijayapuri Colony, Batukamakunta, South Lalaguda,
Secunderabad - 500 017 Rep by her'G.P.A Mosses paul
:..DEFENDANTS 3 & 4APPELLANTS
Sri D. Mosses Paul to represented on behalf of the petitioner No. 2, as per the
Court order dated 23.09.2O21 vide t.A. No. 4 of 202i in CCCA No. BS oi 2019.
AND
2
3
Mr. D. David Paul, S/o. Late Darivemula Francis paul Aqed about 53 years
Occ- Self Employment, R/o. H.No. Plot No. 1300, Flat No. c - 2, Sneha
Residency, Pragathi Nagar, Grampanchayat, Medchal District.
D. Mercy Paul, W/o. Late Darivemula Francis Paul Aged about g2 years, Occ
Retired Govt. Servant, H.No.12-5-149/6, Plot No. gl,Viiayapuri Colony,
Batukamakunta, South Lalaguda, Secunderabad - 500 Oi7.
D. Paul Babu, S/o. Late D. Francis Paul, Aged 56 Years, Occ. Govt
Employee, H.No. l2-5-1 4916, Plot No. 91, Vijayapuri Colony, Batukamakunta,
South Lalaguda, Secunderabad - 500 017. - -
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Order 41 Rule 27 R/W Section 15'1 of CPC praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High
Court may be pleased to receive the additional documents filed in the above
case as additional evidence and permit them to be marked as Exhibits B-1.
Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
stay all further proceedings including execution of the judgment and decree
passed in OS No. 153 ot 2017 dated 07.03.2019 on the fite of the XXVII
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, at Secunderabad.
Counsel for the Appellants
Counsel for the Respondent No. 'l
Counsel for the Respondent No. 3
The Court delivered the following:
: Sri T. Jayant Jaisoorya
: Mr. L. N. Bhadriraju
: Mr. G. Anandam
I
lA NO: 3 OF 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
c.c.c.A.No.85 0F 2021
JUDGEMENT
This first civii appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessfui defendart Nos.3 and 4 in O.S.No.l53 of 2Ol7 on the file of XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 07.03.2019 rn the above referred Original Suit, the appellants have filr:d this appeal under Scction 96 of Code of Civil Prot:cdure (for short "CPC'J $,ith a prayer to set aside the preliminarv decree passed by the trial Ciourt in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff 2. As per the record placed before this Court, it appears that the respondent/ plaintilf has filed O.S.No.153 of 2Ol7 against his mother, brother and younger sister r.r,ith a prayer to pass to preliminary decree for suit "A" to "F"
scheduler propertics into five (5) equal shares and for allotment of one (1) such share in his favour. As per thc averments made in the plain t, tlte respondent has claimed that thc l.t dclcrdant uras his mothcr and the other dct'e nclants arc his siblin6ls and are children of one cccA No as oI2021 ,;
- "11 Darivemulla F rancis Paul who is no morc no. The respondent has claimed that his father had acquired the properties including the agricultural lands at Prakasham District and having alienated ancestral property rvhich is shou'n in plant "C" schedule property to one Satya Venkata Mallikarj un a Rao, purchased two flats at Road No.2, Vijaypuri Colony, South Lallaguda, Secunderabad and after the death of his father, himself and ai1 the defendants became o\\rners of the property. Though he has requested the defendants to cooperate for amicable partition of the suit schedule propertl,, they did not cooperate, tl-rereby filed the suit seeking preliminary decree for division of the plant schedule properties.
3. OuL of the five (5) defendants, defendalrL Nos.3 and 4 have contested the suit. They filed written statement, denying the material averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint. They have claimed that their father during his lifetime h acl executed registered u,ill and bequLeathed the properties .rs per the said Will Deed. The appellants i.e., defendant Nos.3 and .1 have also claimed that the plaintiff despite the financial assistance extended by his father by CCCA No.as ol2o2t way of establishing business could not succeed and left the joint family and was residing with his wife at some other place, thereby he is not entitled to claim partition of the properties and prayed for dismissal of the suit 4. The appellants herein have also claimed that the suit filed by the respondent is barred by limitation, he had no cause of action to file the suit and he is not entitled to an1, preliminary decree and pra-yed for dismissal of the suit.
5. The trial Court has framed the foilowing srx (6) lSSl-lCS 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled lor partition of f /Sthe share in suit schedule properties "A" to "F"
worth Rs.22,93,7401- by meters and bounds falling to the share of the plaintiff and to deliver the same to plaintifP 2. Whether the suit is barred under Section 4 1 of Specific Relief Act?
3. Whether there is no cause of action to file the suit?
4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
5. Whether the Court fee paid is insufijcient?
6. To what relieP 6. During the trial, the respondent himself was examined as PWI and he has marked trxs.Al to A23. The I defendar-rts did not adduce any oral or clocumentary evidence. The trral Court having appreciated the pleadings and evidence found
