SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 25190

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Abhinand Kumar Shavili, Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, JJ
Mettu Baga Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Shakir Masood Ali – Respondent
A.S.No.9 of 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: E. Madan Mohan Rao, Gaddam Srinivas
For the Respondents: P. Venugopal, Enugala Pramod Reddy

A preliminary decree in a partition suit obtained without framing specific issues is procedurally void, particularly when the party claiming a share has their legal status disproved in subsequent competent legal proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XIV Rule 1 - Framing of issues - Failure to frame issues in a partition suit renders the judgment and decree fundamentally flawed and illegal. (Para 20-22)

(B) Partition Suit - Preliminary Decree - Validity - A decree passed solely on admission by a defendant in a partition suit without independent adjudication or framing of issues, particularly when the plaintiff’s legal heirship is subsequently disproved in other competent proceedings, is unsustainable and set aside. (Para 15, 23, 24)

Facts of the case:
The appellants (third parties) challenged a preliminary decree dated 05.02.2009 passed in a partition suit (O.S.No.210/2008), where the respondent No.1 claimed 3/4th share as a legal heir of the original pattadar and obtained the decree based solely on the defendant’s admission. The appellants, who claimed ownership over part of the land, challenged the decree, highlighting that a subsequent suit filed by the respondent No.1 to declare his status as a legal heir was dismissed with a finding that he was not an heir.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the trial court committed a gross procedural error by failing to frame issues under Order XIV Rule 1 of the CPC. The Court further observed that the subsequent dismissal of the respondent's suit regarding legal heirship in O.S.No.11/2011 and the lack of locus standi following other dismissed proceedings confirmed the original decree was obtained invalidly.

Issues: Whether the preliminary decree in O.S.No.210/2008 is sustainable given the failure to frame issues and the subsequent dismissal of the respondent’s claim to legal heirship.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that framing issues is a mandatory requirement for a fair trial and that its absence vitiates the entire proceeding. Furthermore, the final adjudication in a separate suit disproving the respondent’s legal character rendered the underlying basis of the preliminary decree void.

Result: Appeal allowed; the preliminary decree was set aside.

Table of Content
1. overview of the appeal challenging a preliminary partition decree. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. background facts regarding the partition suit o.s. no. 210 of 2008. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. background on the intervenors/appellants and prior litigation history. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. summary of rival arguments regarding legal heirship and locus standi. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. the trial court's failure to frame issues violates mandatory civil procedure. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. res judicata impacts on the respondent's status as a legal heir. (Para 23 , 24)
7. final order allowing the appeal and setting aside the decree. (Para 25)

JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy)

This Appeal Suit is preferred by the appellants/third parties assailing the Preliminary Decree dated 05.02.2009 passed in O.S. No.210 of 2008 by the Court of learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereby the suit filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff against respondent No.2/defendant seeking partition and separate possession in respect of vast extent of land admeasuring Ac.138.39 guntas comprising of various survey numbers, was decreed in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff by granting a preliminary decree to an extent of 3/4th share and whereas remaining 1/4th share in favour of respondent No.2/defendant.

2. The appellants herein who are the third parties to the said suit vide O.S.No.210 of 2008, have preferred the present appeal to protect their interest in respect of the lands claimed by them i.e., Ac.10.07 guntas in Sy.No.186, Ac.15.03 guntas in Sy.No.238, Ac.4.02 guntas in Sy.No.239, Ac.3.27 guntas in Sy.No.241, Ac.2.02 guntas in Sy.No.242, Ac.0.24 guntas in Sy.No.243 and Ac.2.15 guntas in Sy.No.248, situated at Kowkoor Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Medchal – Malkajgiri District total land admeasuring Ac.38.00 guntas, out of Ac.138.39 guntas.

3. This Court vide orders dated 04.04.2022, allowed the following applications in A.S.No.9 of 2022;

i) vide I.A.No.1 of 2022, granted leave to challenge the preliminary decree dated 05.02.2009 passed in O.S.No.210 of 2008,

ii) vide I.A.No.4 of 2022, condoned the delay of 3645 days in filing the appeal ;

iii) vide I.A.No.3 of 2022, granted interim suspension of preliminary decree dated 05.02.2009.

4. Heard Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Enugala Pramod Reddy appearing for the respondents.

I. BRIEF FACTS:

5. The respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed a suit vide O.S.No.210 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, seeking partition and separate possession in respect of vast extent of agricultural lands total admeasuring Ac.138.39 guntas (hereinafter referred to as ‘the entire suit schedule property’) situated at Kowkoor Village, R.R. District comprising of various survey numbers and extents as detailed hereunder:

Sl.No. Sy.No. Extent (Ac – guntas)
1251.32
2390.22
3403.29
44617.06
57201.34
67303.02
77400.19
87500.33
97600.18
109300.11
119420.31
129718.22
139801.34
1418405.06
1518610.07
1619402.18
1722203.10
1822500.28
1922605.37
2022700.14
2122801.32
2223000.23
2323815.03
2423904.02
2524103.27
2624202.02
2724300.24
2824802.15
2925403.37
3026104.10
3126801.11
Total138.39

6. The case of the respondent No.1/plaintiff is that he is one of the legal heirs of late Mohammed Amjad Ali @ Meer Amjad Ali s/o. Mohammed Hussain, who was the owner of the entire suit schedule property among other lands. The said late Mohammed Amjad Ali @ Meer Amjad Ali as pattadar of the land also filed declarations as required under the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceilings on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 in respect of the properties held by him and a detailed order was passed in C.C.No.408/U/75, dated 21.07.1977 by the Land Reforms Trib

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top