CRP/1854/2025 of Vattellarla Mallaiah @ PattelaMallaiah Vs BiakanYellamma on 6 March 2026

1. VatteUarla Mallaiah @ PattelaMallaiah, S/o VattellaMallaiah Age: 76 years Occ: Agriculture Rio Srinivasa Nagar Colony, Ramachandrapuram Town & Mandal,Sangareddy District-502032.

2. MayakalaSathyamma, Wo Mayakala Krishna Yadav Age: 61 years Occ: Housewife R/o H.No. l5-2112, ToopranMandal, Medak Diskict-

3. Vattella Ravi Kumar, S/o VattellaMallaiah Age: Major R/o H-No-6-1 12 Srinivasa Nagar Colony Ramachandrapuram Town & Mandal Sangareddy District-502032. ...Petitioners/Plaintiffs AND

1. BiakanYellamma, W/o Late B.Krishna Age: 54 years Occ: Housewife R/o H.No.7-74 Srinivas Colony RamachandrapuramMandal Sangareddy District- 502032.

2. Balkan Naveen Kumar, S/o Late Krishna Age: 37 years Occ: Business R/o H.No.7-74 Srinivas Colony RamachandrapuramMandal Sangareddy District- 502032.

3. R.Mohan Reddy, S/o Late Saireddy Age: 75 years Occ: Govt.Service R/o H. No. 8-3-1 67/D I 1 27 Kaly an Nagar Hyderabad-500038

4. M/s Shilpa Real Estates (Pvt.) Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director Sri.S.C.Mohan Reddy S/o S.K.Chenna Reddy Age: 65 years Occ: Business R/o 6-3-347/9/N, Hyderabad.

5. M/s Ekadanta Farms & (P) Ltd., 105, Bhaskara Mansion Tahir Villa Yousufguda Check Post Hyderabad-S0O 045

Represented by its Managing Director Sri.K.SreeHariVarma S/o K.SubbaRaju Age. 55 years Occ: Business R/o Hyderabad.

6. M/s My Home lnfrastructures Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the lndian Companies Act, 1956 and having its Registered office at 8th floor, 3rd Block [r/y Hub, Madhapur Hyderabad-500081 Telangana, Represented by its Director Sri.J.ShyamRao S/o Dr,J.RameshwarRao Age: 38 years Occ: Business, R/o H.No.8-2-293l82/NG/53, Plot No.53 Nandagirihills, Co-operative Housing Society Jubleehills Hyderabad-500033, Telangana. ... Respondents/Defendants Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri G Srividya Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HTGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT TIYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA*'ESHWAR RAO O6th March, 2O26 CwIL REVISION PETITION No.1854 OF 2o25 Between: Vattella Mallaiah arld others ...Petitioners AND Biakal Yellamma and others ...Respondents OR.DER Heard Ms. G.Srividya, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, being the plaintiffs, hled a suit for partition ald separate possession before the trial Court in respect of the suit schedule property stating that the cause of action first arose on 27.08.1992 when Baikan I{rishna sold Ac-2-O4 gts to respondent/defendant No.3 under a registered sa-Ie deed and again on 10.11.2023 'when the petitioners demar-rded the respondent Nos. I and 2 for partition. The trial Court rcturned the plaint with an objection as to how the suit for partition is marntainable as per the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2OO5 lor the property sold prior to 09.09.2005

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioners further submits that the pctitioners resubmitted the plaint explaining that Baikan Sathr.amma. being the wife of plaintiff No.1 and mother of plainLifl Nos.2 and ii, was a co-parcener entitled to succeed to half share of the suit schedule property a_long with Baikal Krishna, another co-parcener, and that Baikan Krishna a_lone solcl tl-re property to respondent No.3 under registered sale deed vide Doc.No.3334 of 1992 dated 2Z.OB.Igg2 and Baikan Sathyamma. was not a party to the said sale deed and the szrme is not binding on her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the trial Court by order dated 79.O3.2O25 held that the suit claim is barred bv limitation since the saie deed was executed /, on 27.08.1992 and further observed that the suit propert5r was alienated prior to 2O.12-2OO4 by following Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and therefore rejected the Plaint. karned counsel for the petitioners further submits ttrat the trial Court erred in interpreting Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 without considering that Baikan Sathyamma, being a co-parcener, was not a party to the sale deed dated 27.Oa 1gg2 executed by Baikal Krishna and that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law which requires framing of an issue and giving an opportunity to lead evidence.

5. karned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon the Judgment in Civil Appeal No.5622 of 2025 in P.Kumaralstntbaran Vs. P.Naraganan and Ors. dated 29.04.2025. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: "8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court erred in allowing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and in rejecting the plaint on the ground of limitation, particularly while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Adding funhr:r, it ts submiited that Lhe question of limitation - especially in matters involving the knowledge or notice of the impugned trans:tction is a mrxed queslion of law and fact, u.hich cannot be conclusively determined without a full-fledged tria-I. The AdditiorLal District Judge, upon a careful consideration of the pleaclings, rightly held that the suit raised triable issued requiring evidence, and thert:fore, correctly declined to reject the plaint at Lhe prelimrnary stage. It is also submitted that the plaint contains specific a\rL rments challcnging the a-lienarion of the suit property by thc appcllant's father, who had no authority to do so; and tl1at, the appellant, being a third party to the document, has duly and correct iJ, r,alued the suit in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955; arrd hencc, thcr rejection of the plaint either on the ground of limitation or valuation, without affording the appellant an opportunitY to adduce evidence, is contrary lo the settled principles of law..." Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision petition.

6. In view of the above lega-t position, when the plaint discloses triirble issues requiring adjudication, the plaint cannot be rejected at the initial stage on the ground of limitation wilhout affording an opportunity to the parties to explain the delay in presenting the suit.

7. Accordingly, the Civii Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order in O.S'S'R'No'1OI2 of 2025 dated 19.03.2025 is set aside and the trial court is directed to register the suit and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. There sha-ll be no order as to costs' As a sequel, miscellaneous appiications pending, if ary, in this Petition, shall stand closed. SD/- N.SRIHARI DEPUTY REGTS /TTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal District Judge, Sangareddy.

2. One CC to Sri G Srividya, Advocate [OPUCI

3. Two CD Copies SAA)SI, Sa To,

HIGH COURT DATED: 0610312026

ORDER

CRP.No.1854 of 2025 t ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS HE SI,T o ()t r p t'rq Ztl! * r,A I\', .s b Y C, \,, ?