IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3625 of 2025 This the 21^st day of November, 2025 Between:

Boinpally Chandrashekar.

…Petitioner AND Boinpally Laxmirajam and three others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

Heard G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Perused the entire record.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 30.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.136 of 2025 in O.S.No.109 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.181 of 2014) passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at Metpalli (‘Trial Court’), wherein a petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to record the compromise between the petitioner and respondent No.1/defendant No. 1, with respect to part of the suit schedule properties has been dismissed.

3. The background facts leading to the filing of the suit are that the petitioner is the son of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is the younger brother of the petitioner and respondent No.3 is the wife of respondent No.2 and respondent No.4 is the mother of respondent No.1. The petitioner herein filed a suit for partition with respect to Schedule A and B properties. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC seeking to record a compromise between himself and respondent No.1 with respect to Schedule A properties i.e., to the effect that Schedule A properties are joint family properties of the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2. and that item Nos. 2 to 8 of the schedule properties are purchased with joint family funds and said lands are mutated in the name of respondent No.1 as he is Kartha of the family. Further, they also purchased item Nos.9 to 13 of schedule A properties situated at Vallampally Village. Further, item Nos.14 to 16 situated at Medipally Village are purchased with joint family funds of the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2, but the same were mutated in the name of respondent No.2 nominally as the petitioner was a government employee. The petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly enjoying the suit Schedule A properties. Further, it is acknowledged that item Nos.9 to 13 and item Nos.14 to 16 of Schedule A properties are not the self-acquired properties of respondent No. 2, and the documents nominally stand in the name of respondent no. 2.

4. While things stood thus, there was strained relationship between the parties two years prior to filing of the suit. In the circumstances, the respondent No.1 had taken a plea that item Nos.1 to 8 were purchased with his own funds and item Nos.9 to 16 are not self-acquired properties of respondent No.2. To sum up, the schedule A properties are joint family properties of the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2. With respect to Schedule B properties, a house was constructed by respondent No.1 in which the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have equal shares. But said property nominally stands in the name of the respondent No.3 who is wife of respondent No.2. There are no cordial terms between the petitioner and the respondents. Therefore, Schedule B property was transferred to the name of respondent No. 3 though it was a joint family property.

5. In view of the aforementioned understanding, the petitioner and respondent No.1 compromised the matter outside the Court and intended to record the same, to the effect that the registered sale deed bearing document No. 1520 of 2014 dated 07.04.2014, which is existing in the name of respondent No.3 is a nominal document executed by respondent No. 1 though the subject matter of said document is joint family property.

6. Respondent No.2 filed counter stating that the written statement filed by respondent No.2 be read as part and parcel of the petition. Further, it is stated that there is collusion between the petitioner and respondent No.1 in fil