K. GOVINDAMMA Vs. R. VENKAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioners/R1, R2/plaintiffs under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the common orders passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ongole in I.A. No. 1001 of 2014 and I.A. No. 1002 of 2014 in O.S. No. 110 of 2013 dtd. 5/10/2015 under Sec. 94(e) of Civil Procedure Code (in short 'CPC') wherein and whereby the learned Principal District Judge, Prakasam, at Ongole, directed the petitioners/R1, R2 to deposit compensation amount of Rs.55,94,391.00 in the Court within 15 days and also directed R8 to R10 to deposit entire amount of compensation for 60 cents of land including amount released for 40 cents of land at the instance of the petitioners/R1, R2 within 15 days from the date of the order. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed two petitions before trial Court i.e. I.A. No. 1001 of 2014 for directing the petitioners/plaintiffs to deposit compensation amount of Rs.55,94,391.00 in the Court and I.A. No. 1002 of 2014 to direct R8 to R10 to deposit entire amount of compensation in respect of the land to an extent of 60 cents in Sy. No. 36/1 of Pelluru village.

(2.) The brief averments in the affidavit of R1/D1 in both the petitions, which are similar wherein it is stated that the petitioners herein, shown as R1, R2 in the petitions, have filed suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd share each in the plaint schedule properties consisting of 13 items and also for cancellation of settlement deeds and they filed petition seeking temporary injunction restraining R8 and R9 not to release the compensation amount to R1, R2/D1, D2. It is also averred in the affidavit of R1/D1 that revision petitioners admitted execution of registered relinquishment deeds in her favour in the year 1985 and they themselves purchased 70 cents of land in Sy. No. 29/2A of Malleswaram revenue village from her accepting her title and exclusive possession, thereby asserted her title and possession and they also obtained rectification deed dtd. 6/8/2012 to the sale deed dtd. 29/8/2011. R1/D1 submits that R9, R10 fixed the compensation for the land acquired by R9 for the formation of National High Way and item No. 13 of plaint schedule is also subject to acquisition for laying bye-pass road and then R9 fixed compensation @ Rs.1,40,00,000.00 per acre for the said land, due to that it became eyesore to petitioners herein and they also made false claim before R8, R9 in pursuance of notice dtd. 28/12/2011 issued by R9/D9 wherein she submitted her title deed about her entitlement of receiving compensation for the land shown as item No. 13 in the plaint schedule. She further submits that petitioners/plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claim before Land Acquisition Authorities and then petitioners/plaintiffs have created two registered settlement deeds dtd. 17/5/2013 in favour of Smt. Pelluru Sirisha Reddy, W/o. Sri Sudheer Reddy, who is no other than the daughter of 2nd petitioner/2nd plaintiff and the said two deeds are nominal and sham created during pendency of the suit as petitioners herein have filed suit on 8/5/2013. It is also the contention of R1, R2/petitioners/D1, D2 that though petitioners herein sought for temporary injunction against R8, R9 not to disburse land acquisition compensation amount to them in respect of Item No. 13 of plaint schedule, playing fraud and in collusion with R8, R9 though R8 and R9 aware of pendency of the suit recognized nominal settlement deeds stands in the name of said Smt. Pelluru Sirisha Reddy, released compensation in her favour without following the procedure laid down under law. It is further alleged that petitioners herein/plaintiffs have received entire compensation amount through their benami Smt. Pelluru Sirisha Reddy by executing nominal and sham documents in respect of item No. 13 of plaint schedule property and prays to direct the petitioners/plaintiffs 1 and 2 to deposit the compensation amount. In I.A. No. 1002 of 2014 they prayed to direct R8 to R10 to deposit entire amount of compensation with respect to item No. 13 of plaint schedule property into the Court.

(3.) For which, petitioners herein and R9 have filed separate counters denying averments in the affidavit of R1/D1 in both the petitions. It is the contention of revision petitioners/plaintiffs in their counter that the petition filed under Sec. 94(e) and Sec. 151 CPC is to deposit compensation amount, which was already paid by R8 to R10 to third parties is not maintainable in the absence of any pleadings and not paying separate Court Fee in the suit filed by them. They submit that they filed suit seeking partition of plaint schedule property, wherein no counter claim by R1, R2 and they never sought to pass a decree in favour of R1, R2/D1, D2 and if really they got any right or entitlement of any amount of compensation or share from anyone of the defendants or the respondents or third parties, they have to file a separate suit for recovery of the money and not by filing petition under Sec. 94(e) or 151 CPC. They also stated that as per the contents of affidavit filed by R1 in support of the petition, plaintiffs never received single pie from R8 to R10 and R2/D2, who is an utter stranger to the suit schedule properties, is not entitled to claim any share in the ancestral properties for which they claimed partition, they prayed to dismiss the petition.