CRP/614/2026 of SMT NAGAMMA Vs SMT THAYAMMA on 24 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2026 passed in I.A.No.V in O.S.No.302/2024 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira, the petitioner/defendant No.2 is before this Court.

2. The respondent No.1, who is the plaintiff, has filed O.S.No.302/2024 seeking partition and separate possession in respect of three properties. In the suit, the petitioner/defendant No.2 filed I.A.No.V under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC. According to the petitioner/defendant No.2, she is the second wife of one Kalaiah, and item No.3 of the schedule property was granted to her in a mutual capacity. She is not a member of the joint family. In those circumstances, there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit against her, and the said property cannot be claimed as a joint family property. It is submitted that, as there is no cause of action, the suit against the defendant has to be rejected. The trial Court, by the impugned order, rejected the application.

HC-KAR

3. While rejecting the application, the trial Court observed that the plaintiff has rightly contended that the plaint alone can be looked into. In the entire plaint, nothing indicates that the suit for partition is barred by any law, and the relief sought in the plaint itself discloses the cause of action for filing the suit. On that ground, the question of rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the CPC does not arise. Any contention of the parties regarding rights in the suit property would be considered after a full-fledged trial and, accordingly, rejected the application.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ defendant No.2 submits that the KIADB authorities have issued a Notification expressing their intention to acquire item Nos.1 and 2. If the land acquisition proceedings are initiated, the matter has to be referred to the Civil Court, and they cannot file the suit. As far as Item No.3 of the property is concerned, it is a grant in favor of the petitioner, and she is not a member of the joint family. In those circumstances, the trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint.

HC-KAR

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. The petitioner has mainly raised two grounds. First, with respect to item Nos. 1 and 2, a Notification was issued by the KIADB, and item No. 3 was granted in favor of the petitioner/defendant, who is the owner of the property and she is not a member of the joint family. As per the family tree, it is shown that she is the second wife. Even with respect to this property, if the Court comes to the conclusion that she is not a member of the joint family still the Court has to reject the plaint partially. Then, with respect to the other properties, the petitioner has nothing to do with those properties, and the plaint is not clear with regard to the acquisition proceedings. In those circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following order:

ORDER

i. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

ii. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. None of the observations

HC-KAR

made in this matter shall be construed as the opinion of this Court.

iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37 *AK