KAMARSU RAJA ROW Vs. KAMARSU RAJAIAH ALIAS RAJESWARA RAO
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
KAMARSU RAJA ROW
KAMARSU RAJAIAH ALIAS RAJESWARA RAO
Click here to view full judgement.
Chandra Reddy, CJ. -
(1.) This appeal relates to the interpretation of sections 16 and 20, Civil Procedure Code.
(2.) The material facts are these. The appellant and his father originally belonged to the West Godavari district and they constitute, along with some other members, a joint Hindu family. The father alienated all the properties belonging to the joint family for purposes which need not be detailed here. Thereafter, the parties migrated to the Guntur district and while there the petition giving rise to this appeal was presented in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Guntur. The purpose of the petition was for permission to sue in forma pauperis the father of the Appellant and all the alienees for partition of the properties already disposed of by the father after setting aside those alienations. In this suit were included a few pieces of furniture, etc., valued at about Rs. 1,100. Having regard to the fact that all the immoveable property sought to be partitioned were situate in the district of West Godavari, tke Subordinate Judge returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.
(3.) It is this order of return that is brought under appeal in this Court. What is urged by Sri Veerabhadrayya, learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Subordinate Judge did not appreciate the fact that the suit comprehended moveables also. The principle that it is only the Court having all the properties within its jurisdiction that can entertain the suit is inapplicable to a case where it involves both moveables and immovable properties and as such section 16 does not govern it. The operation of that section should be limited only to suits which seek partition of only immovable property, continues the learned counsel.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.