THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.427 of 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated

15.12.2023 in I.A.No.1577 of 2023 in O.S.No.173 of 2022, passed by the learned VI – Additional District and Sessions Judge – cum – VI – Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge –

cum – Family Court, Prashanth Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Petitioner herein/defendant No.2 has filed an application vide I.A.No.1577 of 2023 in O.S.No.173 of 2022, against the respondents under Order 23 rule 3 r/w. Section 151 of CPC, before the trial Court, to record the compromise. The petitioner and respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff compromised the case and agreed to settle the item No.55 of the suit schedule property in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff and also relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of M.Srinivas Goud Vs.P.Shamantha and others, 2023 SCC Online TS 1748. Other respondents did not appear before the Court, even after service of notice. Respondent No.1 had filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession claiming that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and he is seeking partial compromise with the

petitioner herein. The trial Court observed that in a suit for partition of joint family property, a decree by consent amongst only some of the parties cannot be maintained. Accordingly it was held that respondent No.1 cannot compromise with only the petitioner i.e., defendant No.2 regarding part of the suit schedule property and dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioner preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Parties herein are referred as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed before the trial Court in O.S.No.173 of 2022, for the sake of convenience.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner herein/defendant No.2 mainly contended that respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed a suit vide O.S.No.1205 of 2015 (O.S.No.173 of 2022 (new)), seeking partition, declaration and separate possession, against the revision petitioner and respondents No.2 to 105 regarding the land admeasuring Acs.5 – 11 gts in Sy.No.47, 48 and 49, situated at Raidurg Paiga, Serilingampally Municipality. Plaintiff along with defendants No.1 to 8 constituted a Hindu Undivided Family and they are joint owners and possessors of the suit property. The defendant No.1 converted the suit property into plots and conveyed western part of Plot No.35, admeasuring 139.55 Sq.yrds in favour of defendant No.2, which was mentioned as item No.55 of the suit schedule ‘B’ property in the plaint. The said property was conveyed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 under a registered Gift Deed dated 09.09.1998 vide document No.6848 of 1998. As per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, the defendant No.2 i.e., revision petitioner herein is entitled to 1/18th share in the suit schedule property. Due to intervention of elders and relatives, plaintiff and defendant No.2 have amicably agreed to enter into compromise and resolve the dispute. In view of the compromise, defendant No.2 confined her right to item No.55 instead of claiming 1/18th share and filed I.A.No.1577 of 2023 to record the said compromise.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 further stated that except defendant No.2, no other person is having interest over the item No.55 of the suit schedule ‘B’ property. The compromise proposed between the defendant No.2 and the plaintiff will not affect any parties to the suit and it will not act as adverse interest against anybody else and compromise is not detrimental to any party to the suit, more particularly none of the defendants came forward to oppose the recording of the compromise. The suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 2015 and after lapse of 9 years, it is still at the stage of framing of issues. The defendant No.2 already suffered 9 years without enjoying the fruits of property and if the compromise is not recorded, she will suffer irrep