APHC010144502024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 820 OF 2024 & 829 OF 2024 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 820 OF 2024 Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order passed by the V Additional District Judge, Nellore in I.A.No.108 of 2023 in O.S.No.205 of 2015 dated 31.03.2023. Between: Yegineni Rama Devi, W/o. Nageswara Rao, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Neredupalli village, Vinjamuru Mandalam, SPSR Nellore District. ..Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant AND 1. Samuel.W.Meshack, S/o.S.Meshack, Aged about 74 years, R/o. Gurukul Campus, No.94, Purasawalkam High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010. 2. Priscilla Priyanka Samuel, D/o. Mr. Samuel.W.Meshack, Kishore, Purasawalkam High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010. W/o. Sandeep Aged about 39 years, R/o. Gurukul Campus, No.94, / /' / 3. Bernice Prema Samuel, W/o. Mathew Lyseng, Aged about 35 years, R/o. Millet, Alberta, P.O.Box.1014, TOC.1ZO, Canada, rep. by her GPA agent and father i.e., Samuel.W.Meshack ...Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.205 of 2015 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Nellore pending disposal of the Revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C.Subodh, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Yaswanth Gade, Advocate APHC010144592024 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 829 OF 2024 Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the docket order passed by the V Additional District Judge, Nellore in I.A.No.107 of 2023 in O.S.No.205 of 2015 dated 31.03.2023. Between: Yegineni Rama Devi, W/o. Nageswara Rao, Aged about 53 years, Occ; Housewife, R/o. Neredupalli village, Vinjamuru Mandalam, SPSR Nellore District. ...Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant AND 1. Samuel.W.Meshack, S/o.S.Meshack Gurukul Campus, No.94, Purasawalkam High Road, Kilpauk 600 010. Aged about 74 years, R/o. , Chennai - 2. Priscilla Priyanka Samuel, D/o. Mr. Samuel.W.Meshack Kishore, Aged about 39 W/o. Sandeep years, R/o. Gurukul Campus, No.94, Purasawalkam High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010. 3. Bernice Prema Samuel, W/o. Mathew Lyseng, Aged about 35 years, R/o. Millet, Alberta, P.O.Box.1014, TOC.1ZO, Canada, rep. by her GPA agent and father i.e., Samuel.W.Meshack ...Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs Counsel for the Petitioner; Sri C.Subodh, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Yaswanth Gade, Advocate The Court made the following Common Order: / APHC010144502024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ■ I [3505] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.820 and 829 of 2024 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.820/2024 Between: 1.YEGINENI RAMA DEVI, W/0. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/0. NEREDUPALLI VILLAGE, VINJAMURU MANDALAM, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.SAMUEL W MESHACK, S/O.S.MESHACK, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS. 2. PRISCILLA PRIYANKA SAMUEL, D/0. MR. SAMUEL W.MESHACK, W/0. SANDEEP KISHORE, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF GURUKUL CAMPUS, NO.94, PURASAWALKAM HIGH ROAD, KILPAUK, CHENNAI -600 010. 3. BERNICE PREMA SAMUEL, W/0. MATHEW LYSENG, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/0. MILLET, ALBERTA, P.O.BOX.1014. TOC.1ZO, CANADA, REP. BY HER GPA AGENT AND FATHER I.E., SAMUEL W.MESHACK ...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 to aggrieved by the order passed by the V Addl. District Judge, Nellore in I.A.NO.108/2023 in O.S.No.205/2015 dated.31.03.2023. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.205/2015 on the file of V Addl. District Judge, Nellore pending disposal of the Revision petition and pass praying that in the 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.C SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.YASWANTH GADE CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 829/2024 Between: 1.YEGINENI RAMA DEVI, W/0. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/0. NEREDUPALLI VILLAGE, VINJAMURU MANDALAM DISTRICT. SPSR NELLORE ...PETITIONER AND 1.SAMUEL W MESHACK, S/O.S.MESHACK, AGED ABOUT 74 RESIDENTS OF GURUKUL CAMPUS, N0.94, PURASAWALKAM HIGH ROAD, KILPAUK, CHENNAI-600 010.’ SAMUEL, D/0. MR. SAMUEL W.MESHACK, W/0. SANDEEP KISHORE, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF GURUKUL CAMPUS YEARS 2. PRISCILLA PRIYANKA NO.94, PURASAWALKAM HIGH ROAD, KILPAUK, CHENNAI-600 010. 3.BERNICE PREMA SAMUEL, W/0. MATHEW LYSENG, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/0. MILLET, ALBERTA, P.O.BOX.1014, TOC.1ZO, CANADA, REP. BY HER GPA AGENT AND FATHER I.E., SAMUEL W.MESHACK ...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 to petition is being filed aggrieved by the doctor order passed by the V Addl. District Judge, Nellore in I.A.NO. 107/2023 in O.S.No.205/2015 dated.31.03.2023 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.C SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.- The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs. 820 and 829 of 2024 COMMON ORDER: Since the petitioner and the respondents in these revision petitions are one and the same and as the issue arise out of the orders passed in one suit i.e., O.S.No.205 of 2015, these revision petitions are being disposed of by way of common order. The present revision petitions are filed aggrieved by the orders 2. dated 31.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.107 of 2023 and I.A.No.108 of 2023 in O.S.No.205 of 2015 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Nellore. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The respondents/plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of their title 3. over undivided half share of plaint schedule property and for delivery of possession. They also sought to declare the agreement of sale dated 14.12.1996 created by one Sri Mulpuri Deva Das in favour of the petitioner in respect of the plaint schedule property by forging the signature of the wife of 1®^ respondent and mother of respondents 2 and 3, as invalid. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement in the said suit. The said suit is pending adjudication. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents have 4. filed interlocutory applications i.e., I.A.No.107 of 2023 under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code seeking to reopen the suit for filing a petition for amendment of the plaint and I.A.No.108 of 2023 under 4 Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice seeking permission of the Court to amend the plaint by inserting para 7(a), 11(a) and 12(aa), which reads as follows: 7. To add the following Para 7(a) between Paras 7 and 8 of the plaint: “7(a): It is submitted that the deceased Prasanna Kumari Samuel was having undivided half share in the plaint schedule property and her brother Mulpuri Devadoss had remaining undivided half share therein as per the registered sale deeds dated 14.3.1996 and 14.3.1996 jointly obtained by them. The agreement of sale dated 14.12.1996 is invalid in respect of undivided half share relating to the said Prasanna Kumari Samuel. Thus, plaintiff is the absolute owner of undivided half share out of plaint schedule property. ” 2. To add the following sentence in between the words “delivery of possession of the same” and “is valued at” in Para 11(a) of the plaint i.e., relating to court fees: “On partitioning the same into two equal shares and allotment of one such share to the plaintiffs by metes and bounds taking into consideration of fertility, market value, accessibility and feasibility and subsequently pass a final decree by appointing an advocate as commissioner effecting division of property. ” 3. To add the following at the end of Para 11(a) of court fee: “It is submitted that no separate court fees required to be paid, since the relief of partition is only consequential relief to the main relief of declaration of title and delivery of possession.” 4. To add the following as Para 12(aa) in para 12 of the plaint: “12(aa) Directing partition of plaint schedule property Into two (2) equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiffs by metes and bounds taking into consideration of fertility, market 5 value, accessibility and feasibility and subsequently pass a final decree by appointing an advocate as commissioner effecting division of property.” The application in I.A.No.108 of 2023 was contested by the petitioner by filing counter affidavit. The same was allowed by order dated 31.03.2023 by the trial Court and consequently, I.A.No.107 of 2023 is also allowed by order, dated 31.03.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petitions are filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the proposed amendment ought not to have allowed by the trial Court as initially the suit was filed in the year 2015 and the amendment was sought in the year 2023, after completion of trial and the same cannot be allowed. He would further contend that the respondents/plaint iffs have not paid the requisite Court fee. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that by virtue of the proposed amendment. the cause of action in the suit does not change and the relief now sought for does not require any further evidence and the same is only a consequential relief. He would submit that the relief sought for now is for partition and if at all the Court comes to conclusion that the 6 additional Court fee is required to be paid, it is always upon to .the Court to direct the party concerned to pay the same. On perusal of the prayer sought for in the suit, it is clear that the 8. respondents have sought to pass judgment and decree in their favour by declaring their title over undivided half share of the plaint schedule property and also to declare the agreement of sale, dated 14.12.1996 said to have been executed by the wife of the 1®' respondent and the mother of the respondents 2 and 3 in favour of the petitioner as null and void. Admittedly, the plaint schedule property was purchased by the petitioner/defendant from the 1®' petitioner’s wife and her brother, who jointly purchased the plaint schedule property by virtue of registered sale deeds, dated 14.03.1996 and subsequently, the said individuals have alienated the property by virtue of sale deed, dated 14.12.1996 in favour of the petitioner/defendant. Subsequently the same was regularized and the sale deed was executed in her favour vide document bearing No.229 of 2006. On conjoint reading of the prayer sought for in the suit and the proposed amendment, it is clear that in the event of passing of decree in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents, it is necessary to divide the half share in the suit schedule property claimed by them out of total property purchased by the petitioner/defendant. Therefore, in order to deliver half share to the plaintiffs/respondents, if they succeed in the suit, the proposed amendment is sought to divide the same by metes and bounds. It is :: ijl: 7 i'fi learned counsel for the petitioner that unless Sri Deva original executant of agreement of sale, dated 14.12.1996, has to be impleaded as party defendant in the suit, the relief sought for in the present application cannot be entertained. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced inasmuch the plaintiffs have not claimed any right in respect of the half share individual Sri Deva Das. Therefore, the question of impleading him does not arise and the said objection is hereby rejected. argued by the Das, the learned as of the said As stated supra, the proposed amendment is only a consequential relief to the relief sought for in the main suit. Apart from the same, no prejudice would be caused if the present I.As. are allowed. Furthermore, it is specifically pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the application that no further evidence is required to let-in. In view of the above, there are no merits in these revision petitions. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. 9. 10. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The V Additional District Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 2. One CC to Sri C.Subodh, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Yaswanth Gade, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GPC sree HIGH COURT DATED; 30/07/2025 COMMON ORDER CRP NOS. 820 OF 2024 & 829 OF 2024 a <2 SEP 2025 Ki ★VQirrent St ^'■^Sseauass/ DISMISSING THESE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS