Tuesday, 09, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

R.Anjan Reddy , Anji Reddy Died Per Lrs vs Reddy Venkat Reddy
2025 Latest Caselaw 3957 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3957 Tel
Judgement Date : 16 June, 2025

Telangana High Court

R.Anjan Reddy , Anji Reddy Died Per Lrs vs Reddy Venkat Reddy on 16 June, 2025

Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
                                        1



      THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

           CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1004 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (died)

represented by his legal representatives i.e., petitioner Nos.2 to 6, aggrieved by

the order dated 25.10.2018 passed in I.A No.26 of 2017 in O.S No.82 of 2010

by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, (FTC) at Mahabubnagar District.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. There is no representation by the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the

plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of

the suit A and B schedule properties. The suit A and B schedule properties were

ancestral and joint family properties. The defendant No.5 was one of the sister

of the plaintiff. She died on 16.11.2010. The petitioner-plaintiff was an old man

having lack of legal knowledge. He did not know the limitation period for

filing L.R petition in time, he could not contact his advocate and could not file

the L.R petition within time. As such, there was a delay of 2334 days in filing

the L.R petition. Learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, (FTC) at

Mahabubnagar District rejected the I.A on the ground that the delay was not

satisfactorily explained. The Court below did not notice that the petitioner -

plaintiff was a 75 year old man who was not having any legal knowledge and as

such, could not file the petition for bringing the legal representatives of the

defendant No.5 on record within the limitation period. The Court also failed to

observe that the respondents - defendants also filed O.S No.158 of 2008 for

declaration and that a transfer O.P was filed to conduct trial clubbing both the

suits together. It was just and necessary to bring the legal representatives on

record and relied upon the judgment of the Common High Court of Telangana

and Andhra Pradesh in Thottempudi Krishna Prasad and another Vs. Anne

Srinivasa Rao and others 1 in a batch of CRP's and transfer CMP and prayed to

allow the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The suit is filed for partition and separate possession by the plaintiff

against the defendants. The plaintiff was an old man of 74 years. The defendant

No.5, one of the sisters was reported to have been died on 16.11.2010. The

plaintiff in I.A No.26 of 2017 stated that due to lack of legal knowledge, he

could not inform the death of defendant No.5 to his counsel in time, due to

which, the delay occurred.

7. Considering that the partition suit is still pending and the cause of action

survives and the suit would not abate completely due to the death of one of the

defendants, the trial Court ought to have considered the explanation given by

2019 (4) ALD 219

the petitioner - plaintiff liberally and ought to have allowed the petition

condoning the delay. Generally in partition suits involving family property as

the Courts should usually lean towards substantial justice over procedural

technicalities, if the rights are common or indivisible, the trial Court ought to

have allowed the petition by imposing some costs. The dismissal of the petition

by trial Court is considered as erroneous.

8. In the result, the CRP is allowed by setting aside the order dated

25.10.2018 passed in I.A No.26 of 2017 in O.S No.82 of 2010 by the learned I

Additional Senior Civil Judge, (FTC) at Mahabubnagar District by condoning

the delay of 2334 days in filing the L.R petition for bringing the legal

representatives of defendant No.5 on record as respondent Nos.9 to 14 by

imposing costs of Rs.2,000/- upon the petitioners-plaintiffs to be paid before the

High Court Legal Services Authority within (15) days from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J Date: 16.06.2025 dsv.

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1004 of 2019

Date: 16.06.2025

dsv.

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter