Telangana High Court

Ummenthula Venkata Raghuram Reddy vs Ummenthula Venkata Harshwardhan Reddy ... on 15 July, 2024

Author: G.Radha Rani

Bench: G.Radha Rani

      THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

           CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1677 of 2024

ORDER:

This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners-

petitioners-defendants aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2023

passed in I.A. No.425 of 2023 in O.S No.95 of 2018 by the Principal

District and Sessions Judge at Rajanna Siricilla.

2. The petitioners-defendants filed an application under

Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to

stay all further proceedings in O.S. No.95 of 2018, including

conducting trial, till the disposal of A.S. No.899 of 2003 by this

Court. The petitioners-defendants stated that the respondent-plaintiff

filed O.S. No.95 of 2018 for declaration of title and perpetual

injunction in respect of the suit schedule property situated at

Ananthapally village, Boinpalli Mandal of Siricilla District. The said

suit was coming for filing additional written statement by the

defendants. Recently, it came to their knowledge that the natural

father of the petitioner No.4-plaintiff No.4 and the respondent-

plaintiff, by name, late Ummenthula Jagannatha Reddy during his

Dr.GRR,J

lifetime filed a civil suit in O.S. No.31 of 1996 on the file of the

Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar against his brother Ummenthula

Venkata Narsimha Reddy and mother Ummenthula Achamma for

partition of 24 properties totally measuring Acs.136.00 gts., (suit

schedule 'A' property), situated at Ananthapur along with the other

properties mentioned in Schedule 'B' to 'G' properties therein. The

subject matter of the present suit i.e. land in Sy. No.42 admeasuring

Acs.15.28 gts., is the property mentioned in serial No.2 in the suit

vide O.S. No.31 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at

Karimnagar. After full-fledged trial, O.S No.31 of 1996 was

dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar. Aggrieved by the

said judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the High

Court at Hyderabad vide A.S. No.899 of 2003 and filed CMP

No.10708 of 2003 for interim order restraining the respondents

herein from alienating the schedule properties therein. The High

Court granted interim orders in the said CMP No.10708 of 2003 on

11.11.2003 till further orders and the same was still in force. The

said appeal was still pending for final hearing. Item No.2 of

Schedule 'A' property involved in the said appeal vide A.S. No.899

of 2003 and the subject matter of the present suit was one and the

Dr.GRR,J

same though the parties were different as such, the result of said A.S.

No.899 of 2003 would impact the present suit in all aspects as such

prayed to stay the present suit till the disposal of A.S. No.899 of

2003 to avoid multiplicity of proceedings in respect of same subject

property.

3. The respondent-plaintiff filed counter contending that no

stay orders were granted to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No.95

of 2018. As such, the question of staying O.S. No.95 of 2018 would

not arise. The petition was filed on false and fictitious allegations

and the same was liable to be dismissed.

4. On considering the contentions of both the learned

counsel, the learned Principal District Judge, Rajanna Siricilla

dismissed the petition observing that though the petitioners

contended that item No.2 of Schedule 'A' property involved in A.S.

No.899 of 2003 and the subject matter of O.S. No.95 of 2018 was

one and the same, the petitioners had not filed any document to show

that the suit property in both the cases was one and the same and

failed to establish any connection between A.S. No.899 of 2003 and

O.S. No.95 of 2018.

Dr.GRR,J

5. Aggrieved by the said order in dismissing the petition filed

by them seeking stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No.95 of

2018, the petitioners-defendants preferred this revision petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned counsel for the respondents.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the

trial court failed to see that item No.2 of 'A' schedule property in

A.S. No.899 of 2003 pending on the file of the High Court and the

suit schedule property in the present suit i.e. O.S. No.95 of 2018

were one and the same. Unless and until A.S. No.899 of 2003 was

adjudicated, O.S. No.95 of 2018 could not be proceeded. The trial

court ought to have seen that the respondent-plaintiff, petitioner

No.1, husband of petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.4 were natural

brothers and petitioners and respondent were parties to A.S. No.899

of 2003. The trial court ought to have seen that during the life time

of the father of petitioner Nos.1, 4 and the respondent, he filed O.S.

No.31 of 1996 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar against

their paternal uncle seeking decree of partition and separate

possession. The plaint schedule property in the present suit and item

Dr.GRR,J

No.2 of 'A' schedule property in O.S. No.31 of 1996 was one and

the same and the plaintiff being aware of the same, intentionally

suppressed the said fact in the plaint. The trial court ought to have

seen that a detailed written statement was filed in O.S. No.95 of

2018 by the petitioners and the petitioners specifically pleaded in

their written statement that A.S. No.899 of 2003 was pending. The

trial court failed to see that if the suit in O.S. No.95 of 2018 was

proceeded further, there would be conflicting judgments and no

prejudice would be caused if the suit in O.S. No.95 of 2018 was

stayed. The trial court ought to have seen that the rights of the

parties were not adjudicated in respect of their family properties and

that this Court granted interim orders in CMP No.10708 of 2003 in

A.S. No.899 of 2003 on 11.11.2003 restraining the respondent from

alienating the suit schedule property in O.S. No.31 of 1996 pending

on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contended

that the respondent-plaintiff filed O.S. No.95 of 2018 against the

revision petitioners herein seeking declaration of title and to declare

the properties alienated by his adopted father in favour of third

Dr.GRR,J

parties as null and void wherein his natural father in his cross-

examination admitted that the suit schedule property in the present

suit i.e. land in Sy. No.42 admeasuring Acs.15.28 gts., was given to

him under oral adoption deed. The revision petitioner No.4 filed an

affidavit before this Court in I.A. No.3 of 2022 in A.S. No.899 of

2003 that the respondent and revision petitioners were legal heirs of

late Jagannatha Reddy. Now, the revision petitioners could not

claim that the suit schedule property belonged to them. The revision

petitioners had not filed all the relevant material before the court

below nor before this Court and were trying to obtain interim orders

by suppressing the true and material facts and prayed to dismiss the

petition.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the

judgments of the High Court of Patna in Rajesh Kumar

Choudhary v. Pradeep Kumar Choudhary 1 and Lakshman Ray

v. Ram Bilash Yadav 2.

10. Perused the record.

2013 SCC OnLine Pat 1249

2022 SCC OnLine Pat 460

Dr.GRR,J

11. The suit in O.S. No.95 of 2018 was filed for declaration of

title and perpetual injunction and for rectification of entries in the

pahanies. O.S. No.31 of 1996 was filed by the natural father of the

petitioner Nos.1 and 4 and respondent seeking for partition against

his brother and mother, out of which item No.2 of 'A' schedule

property i.e. Acs.15.28 gts., in Sy. No.42, is the subject property of

the present suit. The Hon'ble Apex Court in National Institute of

Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara 3 held that:

"8 The object of section 10 is to prevent Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits between the same parties in respect of the same matter in issue. The fundamental test to attract section 10 is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject matter in both the suits is identical. The key words in section 10 are "the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue" in the previous instituted suit. The words "directly and substantially in issue" are used in contra-distinction to the words "incidentally or collaterally in issue". Therefore, section 10 would apply only if there is identity of the matter in issue in both the suits, meaning thereby, that the whole of subject matter in both the proceedings is identical".

2005 (2) SCC 256

Dr.GRR,J

12. The High Court of Patna in Rajesh Kumar Choudhary

v. Pradeep Kumar Choudhary (1 supra) in which the first suit was

filed for declaration of sale deed with respect to suit schedule

property as illegal and invalid and whereas the second suit was filed

for partition of the entire property held that the subject matter of the

two suits were different. The land which was the subject matter of

the first suit was only a portion of the entire property sought for

partition in the second suit.

13. In the subsequent case in Lakshman Ray v. Ram Bilash

Yadav (2 supra), the High Court of Patna, almost in similar

circumstances, held that:

"It was an admitted fact that although the subject of title suit No.141 of 2009 was also subject matter of partition suit No.24 of 2005, but the entire properties in dispute in both suits would not be termed as identical as such, it cannot be said that the matter in issue was directly and substantially involved in both the cases."

14. In the present case also the subject matter of O.S. No.95

of 2018 is one of the 24 properties totally admeasuring Acs.136.00

gts., of suit schedule 'A' property in the partition suit filed by the

father of the parties in O.S No.31 of 1996 on the file of the

Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar. Thus, the entire properties were not

identical attracting Section 10, which applies only in cases where the

Dr.GRR,J

whole of the subject matter in both the suits was identical. As such,

this Court does not find any merit in this revision petition filed by

the petitioners to set aside the order of the trial court in refusing to

grant stay of the proceedings in O.S. No.95 of 2018.

15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed