IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THIS THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.309 OF 2010 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.690 OF 2010 Between: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.309 OF 2010 Namineni Srilatha. - - - Petitioner/Plaintiff. AND Namineni Damodar Naidu and 2 others. - - - Respondents/Defendants. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.690 OF 2010 Namineni Srilatha. - - - Petitioner/Plaintiff. AND Namineni Damodar Naidu and 2 others. - - - Respondents/Defendants. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.309 OF 2010 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.690 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the common order, dated 09-10-2009, passed in I.A. No.860 of 2008 and I.A. No.861 of 2008 in O.S. No.470 of 2008 whereunder and where by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, dismissed I.A. No.860 of 2008 and partly allowed I.A. No.861 of 2008. The petitioner in both these Civil Revision Petitions is plaintiff who filed the said I.A.s. Aggrieved by the said orders dated 09-10-2009, the Petitioner/Plaintiff filed these two Civil Revision Petitions. 2. Heard. 3. The petitioner filed the said Suit O.S. 470 of 2008 for partition of the plaint schedule properties. Pending the suit, the petitioner filed I.A. 860 of 2008 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code for appointment of Court Commissioner to make an inventory in respect of the gold ornaments weighing about 400 grams worth about Rs.4,00,000/-, pronotes and documents worth about Rs.5,00,000/-, steel and silver items worth about Rs.1,00,000/-, electric and electronic items worth about Rs.1,00,000/- and furniture worth about Rs.50,000/-, gold ornaments and pronotes which are said to have been secreted in iron beeruva and wooden wall board in door No.5/93C, Satyanagar, Karai village, Ranipet, Walaja Taluk, Vellore District, Tamilnadu and to file his report. It is stated that the said suit was filed for partition of the plaint schedule property in six equal shares and to allot one such share to her. The Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 are her parents-in-laws and the second Respondent is her brother-in-law. It is stated that the plaintiff and the respondents constitute a Hindu Joint Family but, so far no partition is made between them and all the movable and immovable properties are in the custody of the Respondents/Defendants and taking advantage of the same, they are making attempts to take away the said properties and therefore the appointment of a Court Commissioner to make an enquiry and to file the report is necessary. 4. Counter has been filed denying all the allegations stating that there are no joint family properties to be partitioned and the plaint schedule properties are not the joint family properties and the allegation that the Respondents are about to secret the alleged gold, silver and other documents is imaginary and without any basis and the petitioner has failed to furnish the details of the identity particulars of the said properties claiming to be the joint family properties. The second respondent is married and living with his wife owning his gold, silver and other articles in the house. The husband of the petitioner (deceased) was living separately after the marriage and he has not kept any properties in the house of the Respondents and the house is a self acquired property of the second Respondent and the said application filed for the purpose of inventory without any identity particulars of the property stated to be in the custody of the Respondents is not maintenable. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner has failed to furnish the details of the ornaments, no particulars of the gold and silver ornaments, pronotes have been furnished and therefore the said petition filed to gather the evidence cannot be allowed. The Court duly after considering the rival contentions, dismissed I.A. No.860 of 2008 on the ground that the particulars of gold and silver articles and the documents are not mentioned and there is no description of the items of the properties and the application filed by the petitioner is vague without any material particulars as such the same was dismissed. I do not find any infirmity legal or otherwise warranting interference with the said order in dismissing the application in I.A. No.860 of 2008. 6. Insofar as I.A. No.861 of 2008 is concerned, the petitioner filed the I.A. for appointment of a Court Commissioner to make an inventory of the gold ornaments weighing about Rs.4,00,000/-, promotes and other documents worth Rs.2,00,000/-, steel, silver and copper items worth about Rs.1,50,000/- which are kept in independent safe and in beeruva in Door No.10-43, Ground Floor, Satyammagudi street, Pakala. This part of the prayer is rightly dismissed on the ground that the particulars of the gold and silver ornaments and the pronotes were not furnished and therefore, I do not find any infirmity legal or otherwise warranting interference with the said order. Insofar as the other prayer for the appointment of the Court Commissioner to make an inventory in respect of locker bearing No.37, Key No.21 in the name of the deceased N. Sudhakar (husband of the petitioner) and the 2nd defendant who is joint account holder kept in Account No.2212 and the cash of Rs.500/- and gold of 50 sovereigns in safe locker No.37 is concerned, the Court below rightly allowed the said application appointing the Advocate Commissioner to make an inventory of the locker present in the Chittoor Co-operative Central Bank situated at new colony, Pakala, Chittoor District bearing Account No.2212 locker No.37, Key No.21, standing in the names of the deceased N. Sudhakar (husband of the petitioner) and 2nd Respondent and also to make an inventory of the articles, valuables like cash and gold or any other items being present in the said locker in the presence of both the parties and in the presence of the Manager of the said Bank and after inventory to relock the same in its position by placing all the articles found in the article and submit the report. The said Order of the Court below in partly allowing I.A.861 of 2008 is justified and the rejection of the prayer in respect of the plaint ‘H’ schedule cannot be find fault with as the petitioner cannot be permitted to make roving and fishing, enquiring and to gather evidence. But however, it is always open for the petitioner to claim that the house in which the Respondents are residing and other properties belongs to the joint family, the same are liable for partition. In view of the aforesaid reasons, both the Civil Revision Petitions are without any merits and they are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Dated: 23-04-2010. Dsh