APHC010140642025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos:801 & 843 of 2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 801/2025 Between: 1. GUNDU SEKHAR,, S/O LATE GUNDU NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR ANGANAVADI SCHOOL, PEDDIPALEM VILLAGE, ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. SMT SURISETTY VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O LATE SRI. S. KRISHNA, AGED 48 YEARS. HOUSEHOLD DUTIES. RESIDING AT DOOR 55-5- 62/1, HB COLONY, UMANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. SRI SURISETTY LALITHA RAJU KUMAR, S/O LATE SRI. S. KRISHNA, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR 55-5-62/1, HB COLONY, UMANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 3. KUM SURISETTY MAHESWARI LAKSHMI PRASANNA, D/O.LATE SRI. S. KRISHNA, AGED 25 YEARS. RESIDING AT DOOR 55-5-62/1, HB COLONY, UMANAGAR VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 4. SMT DADI GANESWARI CHANDRIKA DEVI, W/O LATE SRI. D. MACHAYA RAJU, AGED 35 YEARS. HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, RESIDING AT DOOR 55-5-62/1, HB COLONY, UMANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 2 RRR,J C.R.P.Nos.801 & 843 of 2025 5. SMT KURAKULA PADMA, W/O SRI. K. SATYA RAO, HINDU, AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT PEDDIPALEM ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 6. SRI GUNDU GOPI, S/O LATE SRI. G. NARAYANA HINDU, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT PEDDIPALEM ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 7. SRI GUNDU RAMA RAO, S/O OF LATE SRI. G. NARAYANA AGED 58 YEARS, R/O.PEDDIPALEM ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 8. SRI GUNDU VASU, S/O LATE SRI. G. NARAYANA, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT PEDDIPALEM ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 9. SRI GUNDU GIRI, S/O LATE SRI. G. NARAYANA AGED 52 YEARS. RESIDING AT PEDDIPALEM ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to set aside the Order and Decree dated 11-11-2024 passed in IA No.744 of 2024 in O.S No. 1107 of 2016, on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to Dispense with the Order and Decree dated 11-11-2024 passed in IA No.744 of 2024 in O.S No. 1107 of 2016, on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to Stay all further proceedings purusant ot the Order and Decree dated 11-11- 2024 passed in IA No.744 of 2024 in O.S No. 1107 of 2016, on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, 3 RRR,J C.R.P.Nos.801 & 843 of 2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 843/2025 Between: 1. GUNDU GIRI,, S/O LATE GUNDU NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NEAR ANGANAVADI SCHOOL PEDDIPALEM VILLAGE, ANANDAPURAM MANDAL VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. SMT SURISETTY VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O LATE SRI. S. KRISHNA, HINDU, AGED 48 YEARS. HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, RESIDING AT DOOR 55-5-62/1, HB COLONY, UMANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. SRI SURISETTY LALITHA RAJU KUMAR, S/O LATE SRI. S. KRISHNA, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR 55-5-62/1, HB COLONY, UMANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. KUM SURISETTY MAHESWARI LAKSHMI PRASANNA, D/O LATE SRI. S. KRISHNA, AGED 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR 55-5-62/1, HB COLONY, UMANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. SMT DADI GANESWARI CHANDRIKA DEVI, W/O LATE SRI. D. MACHAYA RAJU, AGED 35 YEARS. HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, RESIDING AT DOOR 55-5-62/1, HB COLONY, UMANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. SMT KURAKULA PADMA, W/O SRI. K. SATYA RAO, HINDU, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT PEDDIPALEM, ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. SRI GUNDU GOPI, S/O LATE SRI. G. NARAYANA, AGED 54 YEARS RESIDING AT RESIDING AT PEDDIPALEM, ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 7. SRI GUNDU RAMA RAO, S/O LATE SRI. G. NARAYANA, AGED 51 YEARS RESIDING AT RESIDING AT PEDDIPALEM, ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 8. SRI GUNDU VASU, S/O LATE SRI. G. NARAYANA, AGED 47 YEARS RESIDING AT RESIDING AT PEDDIPALEM, ANANDAPURAM 4 RRR,J C.R.P.Nos.801 & 843 of 2025 MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. 9. SRI GUNDU SEKHAR, S/O LATE SRI. G. NARAYANA, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT RESIDING AT PEDDIPALEM ANANDAPURAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to set aside the Order and Decree dated 11-11-2024 passed in IA No.529 of 2024 in O.S No. 1107 of 2016, on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to Stay all further proceedings purusant ot the Order and Decree dated 11-11- 2024 passed in LA No.529 of 2024 in O.S No. 1107 of 2016, on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. LEO LAW ASSOCIATES LLP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. AJAY KUMAR KANAPARTHI 5 RRR,J C.R.P.Nos.801 & 843 of 2025 The Court made the following Common Order: The respondents 1 to 4 herein, had filed O.S.No.1107 of 2016 before the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, against six defendants, including the petitioners in the present Civil Revision Petitions. 2. The case of the respondents 1 to 4 was that, late Sri S. Krishna, the husband of the 1st respondent and the father of the respondents 2 to 4, had entered into an agreement of sale with Sri G. Ramappadu and Sri G. Nageswara Rao, for purchase of the suit schedule property. Subsequently, late Sri S. Krishna, is said to have moved O.S.No.351 of 2005, before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for specific performance of the said agreement of sale and the same came to be compromised before the Lok Adalat, which passed an Award, directing the defendants, in that suit, to execute the necessary deeds of sale. Subsequently, late Sri S. Krishna, is said to have filed E.P.No.149 of 2012, for execution of the said sale deed as the defendants in the Suit were not coming forward. Thereafter, a deed of sale was executed through Court and the respondents 1 to 4 claim that they were put in possession by the Court. 3. The petitioners in these two Civil Revision Petitions as well as the other defendants had taken the plea that the suit schedule property was the subject matter of an earlier agreement of sale executed by the members of the Gandreti family. As a result of which, the property had been transferred out to one Sri K. Thatayyalu alias Sanyasi and registered deed of sale had also been 6 RRR,J C.R.P.Nos.801 & 843 of 2025 executed and the members of the Gandreti family had lost possession and title over the property. The sum and substance of the defendants raised by the petitioners is that, the vendors of late Sri S. Krishna, did not have any title over the land as the said title had been lost on account of prior alienation of the property and that, there were various other suits filed, in relation to this property, regarding possession and title and a conspectus of the decisions in all these litigations would clearly show that, the vendor of late Sri S. Krishna, had no title to pass on and any document executed by the Court, would not enure to the benefit of late Sri S. Krishna, and consequently, the plaintiffs in the suit (respondents 1 to 4 herein). 4. The Trial Court, after considering the rival pleadings, had framed the following issues: “1) Whether the plaintiffs have been in possession over the plaint schedule property? 2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants? 3) To what relief?” 5. After these issues had been framed, the petitioner in C.R.P.No.801 of 2025, who is arrayed as the 6th defendant in the suit, moved I.A.No.744 of 2024, for recasting of issues and the petitioner in C.R.P.No.843 of 2025, moved I.A.No.529 of 2024, for recasting of issues. Both these applications were rejected by the Trial Court, by way of a common order, dated 11.11.2024. 7 RRR,J C.R.P.Nos.801 & 843 of 2025 6. Aggrieved by the rejection of these applications, the petitioners have approached this Court, by way of these two Civil Revision Petitions. 7. As the issues raised in these two Revision Petitions are common, they are being disposed of, by way of this common order. 8. Sri Venkateswarlu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would contend that, the eleven additional issues raised by the petitioner in C.R.P.No.801 of 2025 and the three additional issues raised by the petitioner, in C.R.P.No.843 of 2025, are relevant and need to be framed as additional issues. He would also contend that, the view taken by the Trial Court that these issues are already covered under the three issues framed by the Trial Court, is not correct as various reliefs have also been sought and the same would not come within the purview of the original issues framed by the Trial Court. 9. Sri K. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, on the other hand, contends that, the view taken by the Trial Court that, the additional issues, which are sought to be framed, would require the Court to give relief to the petitioners, even though no counter claim to that effect has been filed, is a proper view of the applications and consequently, the Orders passed by the Trial Court do not require any interference. 10. The eleven additional issues raised by the petitioner, in C.R.P.No.801 of 2025, are on the questions of resjudicata, suppression of material facts, 8 RRR,J C.R.P.Nos.801 & 843 of 2025 declaration of documents, which are being pressed into service in the case, are void-ab-initio and for a further declaration that the suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties, among other grounds etc.. As pointed out by the Trial Court, the issues which are sought to be framed, as additional issues, would require the Trial Court to issue declaration of right and title and also set aside documents, on the ground of the said documents being void. The said reliefs can be granted by the Trial Court only when such reliefs are sought by the party either in the form of an appropriate fresh suit or in the form of a counter-claim, and appropriate Court Fee is paid. In the absence of such pleadings, it would not be open to the Trial Court to grant such reliefs. Framing all these additional issues, would require the Trial Court to grant such relief. Such a course of action is clearly impermissible. 11. The additional issues that are sought to be framed, by the petitioner, in C.R.P.No.843 of 2025 are: “1) Whether the plaintiffs’ vendors are having title and possession over the suit schedule property at the time of execution of a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs dt:03.05.2016 vide Document No.1995/2018? 2) Whether the Document No.1995/2016 dt:03.05.2016 is void and voidable document under law? 3) Whether the defendants are entitle to relief of cancellation of the document No.1995/2016?” 12. The additional issues 2 & 3 require declaration from the Trial Court and grant of relief of cancellation of the deed of sale, being relied upon by the respondents 1 to 4. Such reliefs cannot be granted by the Trial Court, in the 9 RRR,J C.R.P.Nos.801 & 843 of 2025 absence of any counter claim being made, for such purposes, in an appropriately constituted suit or by way of a counter-claim, after paying appropriate Court Fee. In the absence of such pleadings, both these additional issues cannot be framed. 13. As far as the 1st additional issue is concerned, the same would be relevant as the crux of the matter is whether the vendor of late Sri S. Krishna had title and possession of the suit schedule property, at the time when the deed of sale, dated 03.05.2016, is said to have been executed. 14. In such circumstances, both these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to frame the additional issue No.1 set out above as an additional issue in the suit itself and to take up further proceedings after framing of such additional issue. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date:04.09.2025 KPV 10 RRR,J C.R.P.Nos.801 & 843 of 2025 427 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos:801 & 843 of 2025 04.09.2025 KPV