Telangana High Court
Mr. Bhogaraju Lakshminarayana Murthy vs Mrs. K. Vijayalakshmi on 20 August, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1852 of 2024
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution
India, is filed assailing the order, dated 05.03.2024, passed by the
II Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal
in I.A.No.628 of 2023 in OS.No.1434 of 2016.
2. Heard Sri M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, and Sri V.Jagapathi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1
and 2.
3. The revision petitioner is defendant No.17 and respondent
Nos.1 and 2 are plaintiffs in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter,
the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit.
4. The brief factual matrix of the case required for adjudication of
the present case, is that the plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit in
O.S.No.1434 of 2016 to pass preliminary decree for partition and
separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property and to
allot 1/5th share to each of the plaintiffs and also to declare the Gift
deeds bearing document Nos.1133 and 1134 of 2006 as null and void
and not binding on the plaintiffs.
5. During the pendency of the said suit, defendant No.17 filed an
application- I.A.No.628 of 2023 to reject the plaint on the grounds of
2
LNA, J
CRP.No.1852 of 2024
lack of cause of action, barred by limitation, non-joinder of necessary
parties and payment of insufficient court fees.
6. In the affidavit, filed in support of the application, defendant
No.17 averred that the dispute pertains to the property of one
Sri Veera Reddy, who died in 1967, leaving behind four sons,
including the plaintiffs’ father-late P.Balakrishna Reddy; that the
property was partitioned among the sons through a settlement
recorded in Lok Adalat in O.S.No.622 of 2011; that pursuant thereto,
late P. Balakrishna Reddy, having acquired absolute rights, executed
gift deeds in favour of his sons, in respect of his share, who,
thereafter, sold the property to third parties. The plaintiffs, being
daughters, have challenged the validity of these transactions,
asserting coparcenary rights under the amended Hindu Succession
Act.
7. Defendant No.17 further averred that the plaintiffs failed to
produce any evidence to substantiate their claim and that, upon
partition, the property ceased to be coparcenary property and became
the absolute property of late P. Balakrishna Reddy, thereby giving
him full rights of disposition and hence, the suit filed by the
plaintiffs, seeking the relief of partition and declaration of gift deeds
is void and without any merit. He further averred that the impugned
3
LNA, J
CRP.No.1852 of 2024
sale deeds were executed in 2012, while the suit was filed only in
2016, i.e., beyond three years as prescribed under Article 58 of the
Limitation Act and hence, the suit is barred by limitation.
8. Furthermore, defendant No.17 averred that the suit is bad for
non-joinder of necessary parties, as the plaintiffs failed to implead
third party purchasers who acquired the subject property from the
developer and that the plaintiffs have undervalued the suit and paid
the Court fee under Section 34(2) of the AP Court Fees Act, despite
not being in possession of the property, instead of paying court fee
under Section 34(1) thereof. On these grounds, the defendant sought
rejection of the plaint.
9. A counter was filed by plaintiff No.1 claiming coparcenary
rights under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005, asserting that the gift deeds executed by late P. Balakrishna
Reddy in favour of his sons are void ab initio, and are not valid and
binding on the plaintiffs, as the property remained undivided
coparcenary property at the time of alienation. She further contended
that 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act
prohibits such unilateral disposition of coparcenary property and that
the cause of action arose only upon their father’s demise in August
2016 and therefore, the suit is within limitation. The plaintiffs further
4
LNA, J
CRP.No.1852 of 2024
averred that the plaint discloses a valid cause of action for partition
and declaration of Gift deeds as void, emphasizing their status as
coparceners and deemed to be in constructive possession of the
property and therefore, the Court fees is paid under Section 34(2) of
the AP Court Fees Act. The plaintiffs further averred that the
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is premature, as only the
averments in the plaint are to be considered at this stage and hence,
the application is liable to be dismissed.
10. The Trail Court vide the impugned order dismissed the said
application with an observation that cause of action and issue of
limitation are mixed questions of facts and law and therefore, it is not
appropriate to reject the suit at the initial stage. The trial Court further
observed that the right of the plaintiffs accrued by virtue of Section 6
of the Hindu Succession Act cannot be taken away and the same
needs to be considered during the course of trial.
11. As regards the objection regarding improper payment of Court
fees, the trial Court taking note of the fact that there is no mention in
the plaint as to the knowledge of the sale deed and further,
considering that the plaintiffs claim to be coparceners, observed that
the plea of the plaintiffs that they are deemed to be in constructive
possession of the suit schedule property is the subject matter of trial.
5
LNA, J
CRP.No.1852 of 2024
and hence, Court fees paid under Section 34(2) of the AP Court Fees
Act is proper or not would be decided later.
12. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the
plaint is liable to be rejected on five grounds, firstly, that the plaint
does not disclose cause of action; secondly, the contention of the
plaintiffs that they have coparcenary rights under Section 6 of the
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 is unsustainable as the
property lost its ancestral character, following the partition through
Lok Adalat Award in O.S.No.622 of 2011, thereby, becoming the
absolute property of Late P. Balakrishna Reddy; thirdly, the suit is
clearly barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act,
since the suit was filed in 2016 challenging the transactions of the
years 2006 and 2012; fourthly, the suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties, particularly the bona fide purchasers from Venkata
Praneeth Developers and also persons who are in actual possession of
the suit schedule property; and lastly, the improper payment of Court
fee under Section 34(2) of the A.P. Court Fees Act, instead of under
Section 34(1) thereof and by contending thus, he prayed to allow this
Revision Petition.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and
2/plaintiffs submitted that it is settled principle of law that in an
6
LNA, J
CRP.No.1852 of 2024
application filed for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC,
the Court is required to examine only the averments made in the
plaint and the documents filed therewith. If the plaint prima facie
discloses a cause of action and the suit is filed within the limitation
period, the application for rejection is not maintainable in law. He
further submitted that the suit is well within the limitation and
limitation being a mixed question of law and fact can be only decided
on full-fledged trial.
13.1. Learned counsel further submitted that cause of action arose
only upon the death of the father of the plaintiffs and that the
plaintiffs, as coparceners, are entitled to a share in the ancestral
property under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005 and the alienations made in respect of the coparcenary property
after 20.12.2004 are not binding on plaintiffs, as unilateral alienation
is prohibited by law.
13.2. Learned counsel for respondents further contends that suit
is properly valued and Court fee has been paid in accordance with
law. He further submitted that the developer of the suit schedule
property is already made a party and further, even if the Gift deeds
are set aside, neither defendant No.15 nor his successors-in-interest,
including defendant No.17, would get an right in the properties and
7
LNA, J
CRP.No.1852 of 2024
as such, the contention of the defendant No.17 that the suit is bad for
non-joinder of necessary party is not sustainable. He, thus, contended
that the suit is filed bona fide and is maintainable in all aspects and
that the trial Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, has passed a well-reasoned order, which warrants no
interference by this Court and prayed to dismiss the Revision.
14. As regards the coparcenary rights of a daughter in the
ancestral property, it is relevant to refer to the ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma 1 ,
wherein the Supreme Court held that a woman/daughter shall also be
considered as a joint legal heir as a son and she can inherit ancestral
property equally as that of a male heir by birth, irrespective of the
fact that her father was alive before the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005 came into effect. For better appreciation, the
relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as hereunder:-
“As earlier, a woman could not be a coparcener, but
she could still be a joint family member. By substituted
section 6 with effect from 9.9.2005 daughters are
recognised as coparceners in their rights, by birth in
the family like a son. Coparcenary is the creation of
law. Only a coparcener has a right to demand partition.
1
(2020) 9 SCC 1
8
LNA, J
CRP.No.1852 of 2024Test is if a person can demand a partition, he is a
coparcener not otherwise”
15. In the case of Danamma v. xxxx 1 the amended provisions of
Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act confer full rights upon the
daughter as a coparcener. Any coparcener, including a daughter,
can claim a partition in the coparcenary property”.
16. On a close scrutiny of the plaint, this Court found that the
same disclosed a cause of action for partition and for declaration of
the Gift deeds as null and void, premised on the plaintiffs’ claim to
coparcenary rights under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005.
17. The other grounds raised by the revision petitioner for
rejection of plaint, including limitation, validity of the gift deeds and
the question of possession, all constitute mixed questions of fact and
law, which necessitates recording of evidence and could not be
summarily adjudicated at the preliminary stage in an application filed
for rejection of plaint.
18. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that
partition was effected pursuant to decree dated 22.11.2011 passed by
1
(2018) 3 SCC 343
9
LNA, J
CRP.No.1852 of 2024
Lok Adalat in O.S.No.622/2011, i.e., long after the passing of the Act
39 of 2005, which is contrary to the purport of said amendment to
Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and as such the said decree is
per se invalid and nonest, and therefore not binding on respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
19. With respect to limitation, although the learned counsel for
the petitioner argued that the suit was time-barred, as it challenged
the transactions of the years 2006 and 2012, but was filed only in
2016, the trial Court has observed that the plaintiffs’ contention that
they got knowledge of the said transactions only in 2016 upon the
demise of their father. The trial Court rightly held that this assertion
raised a factual dispute requiring trial.
20. For the foregoing discussion and reasons, this Court is of
considered opinion that the revision petitioner has failed to point out
any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, warranting
interference by this Court.
21. The Revision is devoid of any merit and is liable to be
dismissed.
10
LNA, J
CRP.No.1852 of 2024
22. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
23. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:20.08.2025
dr