THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.895 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri K. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Rama Mohan Palanki, learned counsel for respondent No.7. Perused the entire record.

2. The revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner/proposed defendant No.31 aggrieved by the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Principal District Judge at Hanumakonda, (‘trial Court’), in I.A.No.2633 of 2024 in O.S.No.142 of 2022, wherein petition filed under Order I Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C., to add her as defendant No.31 in the main suit, has been dismissed. The parties are referred as per their array before the trial Court. 3. The main suit is filed by plaintiff-Erukonda (Brahmadevara) Sridevi seeking partition and separate possession of the properties consisting of dry land to an extent of Ac.7-09 guntas in Sy.No.67 and house bearing Grampanchayath Nos.3-4, 3-5 admeasuring 1210 sq. yards both situated at Chinthagattu Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District (‘Suit Schedule A and B Property’) and for cancellation of decree dated 23.08.1996 in O.S.No.319 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Warangal. The suit has been filed showing that property belonging to Erukonda Mankaiah is managed by his only son Erukonda Swamy/defendant No.2. Plaintiff is the eldest daughter of deceased- Erukonda Prabhakar, who is eldest son of Erukonda Swamy and remaining defendants i.e., defendant Nos.3 to 7 are children and defendant Nos.8 and 9 are grandchildren of Erukonda Swamy. In short, the plaintiff being granddaughter of Erukonda Swamy (D2) and being daughter of deceased Erukonda Prabhakar (son of D2), filed suit for partition. In the said suit, the I.A. under revision is filed by the revision petitioner/ proposed defendant No.31 claiming to be daughter of Erukonda Mankaiah and therefore, to implead her as defendant No.31, as she is in possession of the suit schedule property. The said I.A. has been dismissed on the grounds of non description of suit schedule property along with survey numbers and non production of documents to show relationship. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

4. In the grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the plaintiff-Erukonda (Brahmadevara) Sridevi and remaining defendants intend to knock away the property of defendant No.2 without knowledge of the revision petitioner and therefore, she has not been made as party to the suit. The revision petitioner/proposed defendant No.31 is daughter of Erukonda Mankaiah and she succeeded the property of said Erukonda Mankaiah.

The fact of impledment of the revision petitioner/ proposed defendant No.31 being daughter of Erukonda Mankaiah is supported by defendant Nos.6, 20 to 22, 25 to 27 and 29 in their counter filed in I.A.No.209 of 2022. Though, the said fact was brought to the notice of the trial Court, the I.A. has been dismissed. There is a clear averment in said I.A.No.209 of 2022 by defendant Nos.6, 20 to 22, 25 to 27 and 29 that the revision petitioner/ proposed defendant No.31 has succeeded to the property of her father and sold the same to defendant No.2 herein for which there is no documentary proof. In the absence of the documentary proof, the right of survivorship survives and therefore, she is proper and necessary party to the present suit. According to the revision petitioner/proposed defendant No.31, none of the parties to the suit have any right in the suit schedule property as it was exclusive property of Late Erukonda Mankaiah, who is father of the revision petitioner/ proposed defendant No.31. There is an attempt to obtain collusive decree and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/proposed defendant No.31 argued that there is a clear admission that Erukonda Mankaiah and Erukonda Ramulu are real brothers and the revision petitioner/proposed defendant No.31 is daughter of Erukonda Mankaiah. The par