Telangana High Court
Singireddy Raji Reddy And Another vs Nalla Sathemma And 7 Others on 24 April, 2026
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1341 OF 2022
Dated: 24.04.2026
Between:
1.Singireddy Raji Reddy and another
... Petitioners-Petitioners-Defendant Nos.3 & 4
And
1.Nalla Sathemma and another
... Respondents-Respondents-Plaintiffs
3.S.Lakshmamma and 5 others
... Respondents - Respondents -
Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 to 8
ORDER
1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed
by the learned XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No.1075 of 2021 in
O.S.No.136 of 2021, dated 26.04.2022.
2. Petitioners are the petitioners – defendant Nos.2 and 3,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs
and respondent Nos.3 to 8 are the respondent Nos.3 to 8 –
defendant Nos.1, 2, 5 to 8 in I.A.No.1075 of 2021 in O.S.No.136 of
2021.
2/11
BRMR,J
CRP.No.1341 of 2022
3. For the sake of convenience the petitioners will be hereinafter
referred to as petitioners – defendant Nos.3 and 4, respondents
Nos.1 and 2 as respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs and respondent
Nos.3 to 8 as respondent Nos.3 to 8 – defendant Nos.1, 2, 5 to 8.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners – defendant Nos.3 and 4
submits that the learned Trial Court erred in rejecting the
application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC which is contrary
to law, ought to have seen that the conditions envisaged under the
provisions are satisfied and ought to have allowed the application,
failed to see that the property has fallen to the share of the father
in the year 1968 and that the property succeeded by him is under
Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, which is a self acquired
property, erred in holding that the status of the property in the
hands of the father of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs
cannot be determined in the application, failed to see that the plea
set up by the petitioners – defendant Nos.3 and 4 for rejection of
plaint is on the basis of the interpretation of the provisions of the
Hindu Succession Act and erred in holding that the property fallen
to the share of Narsimha Reddy on the death of D.Krishna Reddy is
a self acquired property cannot be determined in this application,
which is a triable issue, which has to be decided after full-fledged
trial is not legal and correct. Counsel to substantiate his
3/11
BRMR,J
CRP.No.1341 of 2022
contentions has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i)
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Others Vs. Chander Sen
and Others 1 (ii) Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar 2 (iii) Uttam Vs.
Saubhag Singh and Others 3 (iv) Uma Devi and Others Vs. Anand
Kumar and Others 4 (v) Angadi Chandranna Vs. Shankar and
Others 5.
5. Learned senior counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs
submits that the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the
facts of the case in right perspective, assigned cogent reasons,
dismissed the application filed by the petitioners – defendant Nos.3
and 4 and no interference is called for. In support of his contention
has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Kuldeep Singh
Pathania Vs. Bikram Singh Jaryal 6 (ii) Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh
Sharma and Others 7 (iii) Kum.Geetha D/o.Late Krishna and
Others Vs. Nanjundaswamy and others 8 and prayed to dismiss the
CRP.
6. Learned counsels on record have filed their written
submissions in support of their contentions.
1
MANU/SC/0265/1986
2
MANU/SC/0525/1986
3
MANU/SC/0256/2016
4
MANU/SC/0433/2025
5
MANU/SC/0528/2025
6
(2017) 5 SCC 345
7
(2020) 9 SCC 1
8
2024 (14) SCC 390
4/11
BRMR,J
CRP.No.1341 of 2022
7. Now the point for consideration is: whether the impugned
order passed by the learned Trial Court suffers from any perversity
or illegality, if so, does it requires interference of this Court?
POINT:
8. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs have filed suit in
O.S.No.136 of 2021 seeking partition and separate possession in
respect of schedule ‘A’ to ‘C’ properties into 7 equal shares by
metes and bounds and to declare the partition deed bearing
document No.8287/2005 dated 30.11.2005 executed by and
between defendant Nos.2 to 4 (respondent No.4 and petitioners
herein) and also the gift settlement deed vide document
No.3308/2010 dated 12.08.2010 executed by defendant No.2
(respondent No.4 herein) as null and void, non-est in the eye of law
and not binding on the respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs.
9.1 It is stated in the plaint that Singireddy Yellaiah @ Yella Reddy
was the Kartha of the Joint Hindu Family and he has four sons by
name (i) S.Malla Reddy, (ii) S.Krishna Reddy (iii) S.Narsimha Reddy
(iv) S.Chandra Reddy. After the death of Singireddy Yellaiah @ Yella
Reddy oral partition was effected and properties were divided
between his sons. Krishna Reddy has acquired his share of
properties and he has three sons by name (i) S.Narsimha Reddy, (ii)
5/11
BRMR,J
CRP.No.1341 of 2022
S.Sudharshan Reddy and (iii) S.Sathi Reddy. After the death of
S.Krishna Reddy oral partition was effected and properties were
divided among his sons as such late S.Narsimha Reddy has
acquired properties to an extent of Ac.2-00 guntas in Survey
No.691, Ac.2-00 guntas in Survey No.713, Ac.2-29 guntas in
Survey No.714/2 and Ac.1-13 guntas in Survey No.719. Total
admeasuring Ac.8-02 gutnas. Singireddy Narsimha Reddy had
three daughters i.e, respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs,
respondent No.5-defendant No.5 and three sons i.e., respondent
No.4 – defendant No.2 and petitioners – defendant Nos.3 and 4.
S.Narsimha Reddy died on 04.05.2018 due to heart stroke leaving
behind the parties as his successors in interest. The properties are
joint family properties and they constitute Hindu Undivided Joint
Family.
9.2 In the month of March 2021, respondent Nos.1 and 2 –
plaintiffs came to know that respondent No.4 – defendant No.2 and
petitioners – defendant Nos.3 and 4 colluded with each other along
with Singireddy Narsimha Reddy and got executed partition deed,
which are executed only to evade share of respondent Nos.1 and 2
– plaintiffs.
6/11
BRMR,J
CRP.No.1341 of 2022
10.1 Petitioners – defendant Nos.3 and 4 filed I.A.No.1075 of
2021 under Order VII Rule 11 (a, b, c & d) r/w Section 151 of CPC
to reject the plaint.
10.2 Petitioner No.1 – defendant No.3 has sworn the affidavit
and stated that by taking the averments made in the plaint in its
face value the suit for partition and separate possession is not
maintainable. Yella Reddy died in the year 1968 i.e., after
commencement of the provisions of Hindu Succession Act and by
virtue of said provisions the property came to the grandfather by
succession under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. The
property in favour of the grandfather and thereafter to the father of
the parties is by succession under Section 8 of the Hindu
Succession Act and the property would be the self acquired
property of the grandfather and father of the parties. Once Section
8 applies the joint family property ceases to be the joint property,
thereafter and can only be succeeded to by application of either
Section 30 or Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.
10.3 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs filed counter and
contended that the petitioners – defendant Nos.3 and 4 to avoid the
share of respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs have filed the petition
which is not maintainable.
7/11
BRMR,J
CRP.No.1341 of 2022
10.4 The learned Trial Court observed in paragraph No.12 of
its order, which reads as under:
“12. As stated above, for the purpose of deciding an
application of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC the averments made in the
plaint are only germane and that the pleas taken by the defendant
Nos.3 and 4 in this application would be wholly irrelevant at this
stage and in such circumstances the various averments made by the
defendant Nos.3 and 4 in this application are not relevant to
determine this application. Further, the above said plea that the
respondents/plaintiffs have no right to claim partition of suit
schedule property in view of the partition of the lands between the
sons of Yella Reddy and between the sons of B.Krishna Reddy and
that thereby the properties which fell to the share of Narsimha Reddy
on the death of D.Krishna Reddy is self acquired property cannot be
determined in this application and the same is triable issue and the
same has to be determined after full fledged trial.”
11.1 In Chander Sen1, the Supreme Court held as under:
“If income from assets inherited by a son from his father from
whom he had separated by partition, then it cannot be assessed as
income of Hindu undivided family of son.”
11.2 In Yudhishter2, Supreme Court held that “property
inherited by a male Hindu from his paternal ancestors after 1956
Act is held in his individual capacity, not a Hindu undivided
Family or coparcenary property”.
11.3 In Uttam3 Supreme Court held that on a conjoint reading
of Sections 4, 6, 8 and 19 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, once
ancestral property is distributed according to Section 8, it officially
ceases to be a joint family property.
8/11
BRMR,J
CRP.No.1341 of 2022
11.4 In Uma Devi4 Supreme Court held that (i) registration of a
document serves as a constructive notice to the entire world (ii)
parties interested in a property are legally presumed to have
knowledge of any transactions in public records, (iii) Order VII Rule
11 must be used rigorously to ‘nip in the bud’ any meaningless
litigation that is clearly barred by law or fails to disclose a valid
cause of action and (iv) Court must perform a meaningful reading
of the plaint and its annexed documents to determine if the suit
can be dismissed at the very beginning to save Judicial time.
11.5. In Angadi Chandran5 the Supreme Court has laid down
the following principles: (i) once a joint family property is legally
distributed though lawful partition, it ceases to be joint. The share
allotted to each member becomes their self-acquired property,
granting them absolute right to sell, gift or bequeath it without
consent from other family members. (ii) there is no automatic
presumption that property held by a family member is joint. (iii)
The party asserting joint character must prove the existence of a
joint family nexus. (iv) A son or daughter has a birth right only in
ancestral property, not in a parent’s self acquired property.
9/11
BRMR,J
CRP.No.1341 of 2022
12.1 In Kuldeep Singh Pathania6, the Supreme Court held that
the entire plaint should be read as a whole to determine if it reveals
any cause of action.
12.2 In Vineeta Sharma7, the Supreme Court has laid down
the following principles: (i) a daughter becomes a coparcener in the
joint family property by birth, just like a son, (ii) A daughter has a
same rights and is subject to the same liabilities in the
coparcenary property as she would have had if she were a son, (iii)
It is not necessary for the coparcener to have been alive when the
amendment came into force on September 9, 2005. As long as the
daughter is alive on the date of the amendment, she can claim her
share regardless of when her father died.
12.3 In Kum. Geetha8 the Supreme Court held that plaint
cannot be rejected inpart. It is not permissible for a Court to
bifurcate a suit by rejecting only specific portions of the plaint.
Plaint must be read meaningfully and as a whole rather than
culling out isolating sentences.
13. The Courts role is to examine whether facts alleged disclose a
right to sue, it cannot embark on an enquiry into whether those
allegations are actually true, legal or valid and those matters are
strictly for trial.
10/11
BRMR,J
CRP.No.1341 of 2022
14.1 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiff stated in the plaint
that defendant Nos.2 to 4 (respondent No.4 and petitioners herein)
have no exclusive right to execute the partition deed in between
them over the suit schedule A-C properties as the same are joint
family properties. Therefore, the alleged partition deed is void and
no valid title can be transferred. S.Narsimha Reddy died on
04.05.2018 due to heart stroke leaving behind the parties as legal
heirs.
14.2 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs requested defendant
Nos.1 to 4 (respondent Nos.3, 4 and petitioners herein) and their
father for partition but they postponed the same. Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs have again approached the defendants
Nos.1 to 4 for partition of the properties on 05.04.2021 after the
death of their father but they refused for partition.
15. Chander Sen1 case arise out of Wealth Tax proceedings.
Yudhishter2 case arise out of rent control proceedings. Uttam3 case
arise out of a Second Appeal. Uma Devi4 case arise out of a
partition which took place in the year 1968, Angadi Chandranna5
case arise out of a second appeal. The ratio of those decisions are
distinguishable from the facts of the present case and they are not
11/11
BRMR,J
CRP.No.1341 of 2022
applicable to the case on hand. The decision cited by respondent
Nos.1 and 2 – plaintiffs assist his contention.
16. Power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are
apparent on the face of record or exercising its jurisdiction in a
perverse manner (See: K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan 9).
17. On careful reading of the entire plaint the contentions raised
by the petitioners – defendant Nos.3 and 4 are to be determined in
a full fledged trial but not under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The scope
of Article 227 is limited as stated supra and the learned Trial Court
has assigned cogent reasons in dismissing the IA. Hence this Court
is not inclined to interfere with the same.
18. C.R.P.No.1341 of 2022 is dismissed without costs.
Interim orders if any stand vacated, miscellaneous petitions
shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
24.04.2026
Dua
9
2025 SCC OnLine SC 985
