CRP/1866/2025 of CHAMARTHI MAHESWARA RAJU Vs CHAMARTHI SATHYANARAYANA RAJU on 6 May 2026

1. CHAMARTHI MAH AGED 70 YEARS, PRAKASAM ROAD

1. CHAMARTHI SAT RAJU, HINDU, BUSINESS

PE PRAKASAM ROAD RESIDING AT D N JAYANAGAR, BAN

2. CHAMARTHI RAM RAJU, HINDU, AG R/O. D.NO.195/1 CHITTOOR DISTR

3. CHAMARTHI PRA HINDU, AGED AB D.NO. 195/196, DISTRICT.

4. CHAMARTHI RA RAJU, HINDU BUSINESS/CULTI E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) DAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL REVISION PETITION NO: 1866/2025 HESWARA RAJU, S/O. RAMACHA BUSINESS/CULTIVATION, R/O. D , TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. AND THYANARAYANA RAJU, S/O. RA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. C ERMANENT RESIDENT OF D. D, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT NO. 1623, EAST END MAIN ROAD, NGALORE -506041. MACHANDRA RAJU, (DIED) S/O C GED ABOUT 80 YEARS, BUSINESS/ 196, PRAKASAM ROAD, TIRU RICT. ABHAKAR RAJU, S/O. RAMACHA BOUT 68 YEARS, CULTIVATION/BU PRAKASAM ROAD, TIRUPAT ADHAKRISHNAMA RAJU, S/O. RA U,

AGED ABOUT

VATION, R/O. D.NO. 1-10-38/2, GRO DESH

LAPATI ANDRA RAJU, D.NO. 195/196, ...PETITIONER AMACHANDRA CULTIVATION/ NO. 195/196, , PRESENTLY , 9TH BLOCK, .C.NARAYANA /CULTIVATION UPATI TOWN, ANDRA RAJU, USINESS R/O. I, CHITTOOR AMACHANDRA

YEARS, OUND FLOOR,

OM BUILDING, PRAKASH NAGAR, BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD.

5. CHAMARTHI MALLIKARJUNA, S/O. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, HINDU, AGED 52 YEARS, R/O. C/O D.NO.1-8-144/152, AVASANGAM BUILDING, CRYSTAL POLYMERS AND ADDITIVES LTD, PENDER GHAST ROAD, SECUNDERABAD.

6. DR CHAMARTHI MALATHI, W/O. SRIDHAR G. RAJU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT

YEARS. DOCTOR BY PROFESSION, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF S. B. R. PURAM, VADAMALPETA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

7. CHAMARTHI SAROJINAMMA DIED, W/O. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO.195/196, PRAKASAM ROAD

TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

8. OSCAR FRIGHT PVT LTD, REP BY ITS CHIEF COORDINATOR, RAHUL JOSHI HINDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT D.NO.1-10-38/2, OM BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR (FRONT SIDE), BEHIND RAHUL AUTO BAJAJ, PRAKASH NAGAR, BEGUMPET, HYDERBAD-5600016

9. S S R LOGISTICS, AUTHORIZED CUSTOMS CLEARING AND FREIGHT FORWARDING AGENTS REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR R. LAKSHMANA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT D. NO. 1-10-38/2, OM BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR (BACK SIDE). BEHIND. RAHUL AUTO BAJAL, PRAKASH NAGAR, HYDERABAD-5600016.

10. OMEGA GLOBAL LOGISTICS PRIVATE LTD, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VIKRAM KATHRO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT D NO. 1-10-38/2, OM BUILDING, 2NDFLOOR (BACK SIDE). BEHIND RAHUL AUTO BAJAI, PRAKASH NAGAR, HYDERABAD-5600016.

11. BRILLIANT HIGH SCHOOL, REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT A. MURALI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT D. NO, 8/178, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, RIY KODUR VILLAGE AND POST, KADAPA DISTRICT.

12. KAVERI HOTEL, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, B.HARI KRISHNA,

HINDU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, HAVING HIS BUSINESS AT D. NO.195, PRAKASAM ROAD, BALAJI COMPLEX, TIRUPATI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

13. SPORT BONANZA, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR P. SHAMALA, W/O P. NARAYANA, HINDU, AGED 40 YEARS HAVING HER BUSINESS AT D.NO.195 PRAKASAM ROAD, BALAJI COMPLEX, TIRUPATI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

14. BANGALORE BAKERY, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR K. K. SHESHADRIGIRI VASAN, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, HAVING HIS BUSINESS AT D.NO.195 PRAKASAM ROAD, BALAJI

15. SUN BEAM SPORTS, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR R. RADHIKA, W/O R. RAVIKANTH REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, HAVING HER BUSINESS AT D.NO.195 PRAKASAM ROAD, BALAJI COMPLEX, TIRUPATI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

16. SHOE SHOPPY, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR R. RAMESH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, HAVING HIS BUSINESS AT D. NO. 195 PRAKASAM ROAD, BALAJI COMPLEX, TIRUPATI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

17. IRANI TEA CENTER, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR RAVI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, HAVING HER BUSINESS AT D. NO. 195 PRAKASAM ROAD, BALAJI COMPLEX, TIRUPATI TOWN,

18. P SRI HARI, S/O R NARASIMHA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. PROPRIETOR OF TELEPHONE AND XEROX SHOP, HAVING HIS BUSINESS AT D NO. 195, PRAKASAM ROAD, BALAJI COMPLEX, TIRUPATI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

19. P PANDURANGAIAH CHETTY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. PETTY SHOP HAVING HIS BUSINESS AT D NO.195, PRAKASAM ROAD, BALAJI COMPLEX,

TIRUPATI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

20. JANA CHAITHANYA HOUSING LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR M. SUDHAKAR, S/O. M. BHASKAR RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 5/1, PASUMALAI COMPLEX,

ARUNDELPET, GUNTUR, HAVING HER BUSINESS AT 2ND FLOOR, D.NO.195, PRAKASAM ROAD, BALAJI COMPLEX, TIRUPATI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

21. EXECUTIVE FINANCE IDEA CELLULAR LTD, KLK ESTATE, FEATEH MAIDAN ROAD, HYDERABAD-500001 HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT SUMAN TOWERS, PLOT NO. 18, SECTOR NO. 11 GANDHI NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

22. K VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O. K. SUBRAMANYAM, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS CC.E-ICET COACHING CENTRE, HAVING HIS BUSINESS AT ICE CENTRE, 2ND FLOOR, D NO.195 AND 196, BALAJI COMPLEX PRAKASAM ROAD, TIRUPATI TOWN,

23. YASH TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD, REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON, M. SRINIVASA RAO HINDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. NO. 302, ALMAS BUILDING NO. 5, SANGHI COLONY, OLD PALASA, MADHYA PRADESH ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT HYDERABAD AT

7TH FLOOR, SAPTAGIRL TOWERS, BEGUMPET, SECUNDERABAD, HAVING BUSINESS AT 2'ND FLOOR, D.NO. 195/196, PRAKASAM ROAD, BALAJI COMPLEX, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

24. K KISHNAIAH, S/O RAMALAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 30, SURYA NAGAR, IDPL COLONY, HMT ROAD, HYDERABAD.

25. K VEERAIAH, S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO 30, SURYA NAGAR, IDPL COLONY,

H.M.T ROAD, HYDERABAD.

26. K SUBBA RAO, S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 19-368 H.G. STREET, KADAPA.

27. SHAIK ESADANI BASHA, S/O LATE SHAIK KASIM SAHEB, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. D NO.7-124, MOCHAMPETA STREET. KADAPA TOWN AND POST KADAPA DISTRICT.

28. C SARANYA RAJU, D/O. C. MALLIKARJUNA RAJU, HINDU, AGED 17 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. 101, OAK WOOD APARTMENTS, NANDAGIRI HILLS, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD.

29. C ARYAN RAJU, S/O. C. MALLIKARJUNA RAJU, HINDU, AGED 11 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO.101, OAK WOOD APARTMENTS, NANDAGIRI HILLS, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD.

30. MAHI GUNTAMADUGU RAJU SUHANYA GUNTAMADUGU RAJU, S/O. G. SRIDHARA RAJU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS REP BY THE SPAC. MALLIKARJUNA RAJU, R/O. 1655, MORGAN ROAD, SOUTH LAKE, TEXAS-76092, USA.

31. INESH GUNTAMADUGU RAJU NIASH GUNTARMADUGU RAJU, S/O. G. SRIDHARA RAJU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS REP BY THE SPAC. MALLIKARJUNA RAJU, R/O. 1655, MORGAN ROAD, SOUTH LAKE, TEXAS-76092, USA. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition before this Hon’ble Court against the Orders passed in I.A.No.282 of 2024 in O.S.No. 32 of 2009, dated 08.05.2025 on the file of Honble IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, dismissing the lA filed under Order XV, Rule 5 and Sec. 151 CPC for directing the defendants 5 and 6 to deposit the rents collected from the tenants from 2014 onwards till the disposal of the suit for the following among other IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to permit me to file the additional documents and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SOORA VENKATA SAINATH Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. K S MURTHY ASSOCIATES

2. The Court made the following order:

Assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 08.05.2025 passed in Interlocutory Application No.282 of 2024 in Original Suit No.32 of 2009 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, the present Civil Revision petition is filed.

2. The facts that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that:

The petitioner herein is the defendant No.2, respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 31 are co-defendants. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the said suit for partition. The petitioner, who is defendant No.2 in the suit, filed I.A.No.282 of 2024 under Order XV Rule 5 CPC and Section 151 CPC seeking direction to the defendant Nos.5 and 6 to deposit the rents collected from the tenants from 2014 onwards till the disposal of the suit. In the said suit, defendant No.5 filed counter denying the averments in the petition. The trial Court, after hearing the parties and considering the material available on record, dismissed the interlocutory application. Aggrieved by the said order, the Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. Respondent No.5 herein/defendant No.5 filed counter in this Civil Revision Petition contending that he is the rightful owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of a registered Will and Codicil executed by his parents. It is further contended that his parents did not die intestate, as they had executed the said Will and Codicil, which is valid and binding, as such, he is in physical possession of the plaint schedule property and the petitioner cannot seek any direction much less a direction for deposit of rents and/or profits into the Court, especially when there is no material to show the petitioner’s right to seek such a relief. It is further contended that the trial Court was justified in arriving at the conclusion that since the suit has reached the fag end of trial, passing such an order directing defendant No.5 to deposit rents into Court without arriving at any conclusion on the Will and Codicil and his rights over the said property would be devoid of merits, as such, the order of the trial Court cannot be interfered with. It is further contended that as there is no material irregularity apparent on the face of record committed by the trial Court and in the absence of such assertion, the revision cannot be entertained. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.

4. Heard Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ponnada Sreevyas, learned counsel, representing M/s K.S.Murthy Associates, learned counsel for respondent No.5, who is defendant No.5 in the suit.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision and contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition before the trial Court, contended that taking advantage of the petitioner/defendant No.2 being away from the subject station and the demise of defendant No.1, defendant No.5 has started collecting rents from the

tenants at the rate of Rs.20,00,000/- per annum and is enjoying the said amount. In view of the said circumstances and to safeguard the interest of all the defendants as well as the plaintiff, an application was filed under Order XV Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC seeking a direction to respondent No.5 to deposit the amounts from 2014 onwards in the Court. He further submitted that the trial Court erroneously dismissed the said application. He further contended that respondent No.5, in his cross examination, has categorically admitted that he has been collecting rents. In the said circumstances directing him to deposit the rents into Court would not only protect the interest of defendant No.2, but also all the parties to the suit, If such direction is not issued, respondent No.5 would continue to enjoy the entire rental income arising out of the joint family property and it would become difficult to recover the same from him in future, thereby causing irreparable loss and prejudice to the parties. Hence, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the parties. In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajinder Kaur (deceased) through Legal Heir Usha v. Gurbhajan Kaur (deceased) through Lrs Upinder Kaur and others1 and Cheruku Swamy Nathan v. Venisetty Rathnam and others2

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.5 in elaboration to what has been stated in the counter, submitted that an application under Order XV is not available in the present suit for partition, as the said provision 1 2024 SCC Online SC 1794 2 2021 SCC Online TS 399

is applicable only in rent control proceedings. He further contended that the petitioner cannot seek a direction for deposit of rents before the trial Court in a partition suit. He further contended that the trial Court, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly dismissed the interlocutory application and the same does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M.B.Chander v. M/s Balakrishna rao Charitable Trust3 and Swarna Priya v. G.Koteswararao and another4

7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. The main contention of the petitioner is that respondent No. 5 is collecting rents from the tenants and enjoying the same exclusively, and therefore, to safeguard the interest of all parties, a direction ought to have been issued for deposit of rents into Court. As could be seen from the facts and circumstances and the material available on record, the application has been filed at the fag end of the trial. There is no material on record to show when defendant No.1 died during the pendency of the suit. Further, the suit being of the year 2009, no explanation is forthcoming as to why defendant No.2 did not choose to file such an application at the initial stage of the proceedings. Since the trial has already reached the stage of conclusion, filing 3 2016 SCC Online Hyd 301 4 2014 SCC Online Hyd 1383

of such an application at this belated stage does not arise. The trial Court has dismissed the interlocutory application mainly on the said ground.

9. It is a well settled principle of law that in a suit for partition, until the rights of the parties are adjudicated, no party can be compelled to deposit alleged income or rents into Court, unless a clear legal right is established. The relief sought in the present interlocutory application requires the Court to adjudicate disputed questions of title and entitlement over the income from the suit schedule property, which is impermissible at this interlocutory stage.

10. Further, the decisions relied by the respondent with regard to the maintainability of the application under Order XV Rule 5 CPC is concerned, the same cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. Mere mentioning of a wrong provision does not vitiate the proceedings. Even otherwise, exercise of powers under Section 151 CPC is purely discretionary and intended to meet the ends of justice, but cannot be invoked to grant relief which would effectively amount to adjudication of substantive rights of parties before trial.

11. The trial Court, upon consideration of the material on record, has rightly observed that in the absence of adjudication of the rights of parties under the Will and Codicil set up by respondent No. 5, no direction for deposit of rents could be ordered, particularly when the suit is at the stage of trial. The said finding does not suffer from any irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the trial Court does not warrant interference and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 07.05.2026 MP

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:1866 of 2025 Date: 07.05.2026

MP