THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO C.R.P.No.2896 OF 2010 ORDER: This Revision has been preferred by the plaintiff in the suit, aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.No.1980 of 2009 moved by the 1st defendant. O.S.No.75 of 2008 has been instituted in the Court of the I Additional District Judge at Khammam seeking partition. The plaintiff is the son of defendants 1 and 4 in the suit. The 1st defendant father has filed I.A.No.1980 of 2009 pointing out that he is having health problems and that he has also undergone bypass surgery on 10-09- 2004 at Usha Mullapudi Cardiac Hospital, Hyderabad, and the 4th defendant, his wife, was suffering from acute diabetes, requiring medication and medical attention constantly. Further, he has asserted that except the suit schedule “H” property, the rest of the properties are all self-acquired properties and that he entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule “F” property with one Sri Vanama Dayanandh of Hyderabad on 13-09-2008 and received a sum of Rs.50,000/- and he is yet to receive a further sum of Rs.1 lac by 15-11-2008 and the balance amount of Rs.2,39,000/- on 12-01-2009 and in view of the failure of the 1st defendant to execute a sale deed in favour of the said individual, in view of pendency of the civil suit, that individual was demanding to refund the advance amount of Rs.50,000/- together with interest at 4% and damages of Rs.50,000/- and since, he was not in a position to fulfill these obligations, he sought for permission to sell the suit schedule “F” property by receiving the balance sale consideration. A counter affidavit has been filed to the said I.A. by the petitioner herein. It is averred that the agreement of sale, said to have been entered into by the 1st defendant with the said Dayanandh, is created for the purpose of defeating the rights of the plaintiff. It is also asserted that the value of the plot, as per the valuation certificate issued by the Sub Registrar concerned, was Rs.6,02,950/-, whereas the 1st defendant has proposed to sell it for a sum of Rs.3,89,000/- and thus, the transaction is sham and nominal, intended to frustrate the interests of the plaintiff and that the 1st defendant is running business of a general stores and getting income therefrom. He is also receiving rents from the properties, which are in his possession and such an income is sufficient to liquidate any obligation / liability towards Sri Dayanandh and prayed for dismissal of the I.A. The learned Additional District Judge, Khammam, after a detailed consideration of the matter, has allowed the I.A., by its order dated 08-04-2010. In case the suit schedule “F” property is in fact self- acquired property of the 1st defendant, as asserted, the 1st defendant would be legitimately entitled to dispose it of subject to the terms and conditions to his satisfaction. The plaintiff - petitioner herein cannot raise an objection in that regard. He will only have subsisting interest if the suit schedule “F” property is held as joint family property and thus, liable to suffer partition. In the event the Court comes to such a conclusion, after collecting necessary evidence, the equities can always be appropriately worked out. It is not as if the 1st defendant in the suit will completely be denuded of his share in the property. If the 1st defendant sells the suit schedule “F” property for a hopelessly inadequate consideration, even that factor can be taken into consideration at the time of working out the equities after collection of evidence. As at present, the 1st defendant in the suit is an aged person and if he is required to spend some money for taking care of his health condition and that of his ailing wife’s health condition, the same cannot be construed as a device to frustrate the interests of the plaintiff - petitioner. I have not found any illegality committed in the exercise of discretion by the Court below in allowing the I.A., for me to exercise the revision jurisdiction. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, accordingly, dismissed, but however, with a direction to the Court below to take these factors into consideration and account while working out the equities at the time of passing the Judgment and Decree. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 21st October 2011