APHC010247882023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI UUSTIGE T.e.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1563 OF 2023 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed dgainst the Judgment and decree dt.13.04.2023 made in I.A. NoK 128/2023 in O S-No 68 of 2014, on the file of the Court‘#fh^ District Judge at Vizianagaram Between: Palakurti Varahalamma @ AmOTi-. W/o Sankara Hao, Sfungavarapukota Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District Receive Petitionef/Plamtiff AND 1. Srinadhu Paradesi, S/o lateSpiSalanarasayya, 79 years, Yedia Veedhi, Lakshmi Nilayam, Srungavafapukota Village and Mandalj Vizianagaram District. . 2. Srinadhu Srinivasa Rad,'S/6 latd Appalanarasayya, Aged 68 years, Yedia Veedhi, Lakshmi Nilayam, Srungavarapukota Village anci Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 3. Palakurthi Chittithalli, W/p Kalyanaraju, Aged 78 years,R/o Behind Rand B Bunglow, Srungavarapukota Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 4. Jagani Varalakahsmi, W/o Lakshmifao, Aged 73 years' R/o 0^ Ramakrishna Theatre, Srungavarapukota village and Mahdal, Vizianagaram District. ,a’ ■ 5. Putta Nagamani, W/o Venkata Rao, Aged 63 years R/o near MDO Office, Srungavarapukota village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 6. Srinadhu Ramakrishna,^S/o-late Appalanarasayya, 63 years, R/o Yed Veedhi, Srungavarapukota village and Mandal, Viziahagaram District. i r; . r‘iX'S" V : -i V /: >■ i Srinadhu Siva Prasad, S/o late Appa Rao, Aged 53 years, D.No.55-41- 51, Ambedkar Nagar, Seethammadara, Visakhapatnam -13. Palakurti Varalakshmi S,anti, .(died). Palakurti Gowtham Sai,,S/o Appalanarasayya @ Chanti, Aged 22 years, Kapu Street, Srungayarapukota and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 10. Palakurti Akhil, S/o Appalanarasayya @ Ghanti, Aged 19 years, Kapu Street, Srungavarapukota and, Mandal, Vizianagararn Pistrict, 11. Srinadhu Vijaya Laxmi, W/o/Ramakrishna, Aged 60 years, Laxmi Nilayam, Yedia Veedhi, Srungavarapukota Village and Mandal, Vizianagararn District. 12. Adimulam Venkata Krishna Ranga Rao, S/o Venkata Satya Kameswara Guptha, 37 years, b.No.4r21, near Gandhi Statue, Srungavarapukota Village and Mandal, ViziariagaTarhiDistrict. 7. 8. 9. ■Ci ...Respondents ■t \ ^•4r;ir i IA NO: 1 OF 2023 / A' i Petition under Section 151 CPG is filed praying that in the circumstanGes stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Gourt may pleased to grant stay of all furtherjprpceedings in O.S.No. 68 of 2014, on the file of the Court of the Judge, Fa.rnily.Court-Cum-lil AdditiOhal District Judge a^^^^ Vizianagararn, pending disposal of the above civil revision petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRi A S C BOSE Counsel for the Respondents No.l, 2, 4 & 5: SRI G RAMA Counsel for the Respondents NO:6,11 & 12: SRI YARRAMSETTY VENKATESH The Court made the following: Order % j- ■f 5 A I Y ) APHC010247882023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENtV FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3505] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1563/2023 Between: Palakurti Varahalamma @ Ammaji AND ...PETITIONER Srinadhu Parades! and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.ASCBOSE Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1. YARRAMSETTY VENKATESH 2.G RAMA GOPAL The Court made the following: i ORDER:- 1. The present revision petition is filed questioning the order dated 13.04.2023 passed in lA No. 128 of 2023 in OS No.68 of 2014, on the file of Family Court-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. The petitioner is plaintiff in the suit, she filed suit for partition of the suit schedule property against the respondents herein. When the suit is posted for cross examination of plaintiff, the petitioner filed application vide lA No. 128 of 2023 under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC seeking to condone the delay in filing certain documents. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the 1®' defendant/respondent filed a written statement, where under it i stated that his father Appalanarasayya, during his IS life time, settled a house property in the name of the mother of 6*^ defendant by name Ramudamma as she was his kept mistress. It IS further stated that the said Appalanarasayya also purchased landed property in the name of Ramudamma who is none other than the mother of the petitioner herein. In the written the 1®* defendant/respondent also denied that Ramudamma is the legally wedded wife of his father Appalanarasaiah. statement 3. Since it is specifically denied by the defendant No.1 that the petitioner is not the daughter of the said Appalanarasaiah, she filed the present application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stating that during 1950 she studied in Perraju School, which is not in existence now and the records of the school are not available. It is further stated in the affidavit that her mother Ramudamma purchased the properties under two (02) registered sale deeds dated 10.05.1955 and 24.01.1957. It is further stated that the said sale deeds could not be filed at the time of presenting the plaint and after thorough search she could not find the original sale deeds and she obtained certified copies of the same in order to prove that (Ramudamma) her mother is legally wedded wife of 1®* defendant’s father, she filed the present application seeking condone the delay in filing the said documents. 4. On the other hand, the respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the respondents have cross-examined the petitioner/plaintiff regarding her birth extract and also with regard to the school records. In order to avoid filing the school records the petitioner has come up with the present application. Apart from the same, it is also contended by the respondents that the petitioner filed certified copies of the said sale deeds and the same cannot be taken on record. After considering the application filed by the petitioner, by impugned order the Trial Court dismissed the same. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Perused material available on record. 7. It is the case of the respondents that originally the mother of the petitioner married one Sri Manchina Satti Appanna and she did not take divorce from her husband. The said suggestion was also put to the petitioner during examination. In order to prove that the petitioner is the daughter of Appalanarasayya and Ramudamma, she filed present application to receive sale deeds said to have been purchased by her mother. As rightly pointed out by the Trial Court, even if the documents are taken on file through which it can be proved that, Ramudamma, who is the mother of the petitioner is wife of Appallanarasayya but, it cannot be proved that, the petitioner is the daughter of Appalanarasayya and Ramudamma. Apart from the same, the petitioner did not file the original sale deeds before \ cross- V the Trial Court. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order. 8. For the foregoing reasons, there are no merits in the revision petition. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR inkuE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Judge, Family Court-Cum-ill Additional District Judge At Vizianagafam, 2. One CC to Sri A S C Bose Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CG to Sri Yarramsetty Venkatesh Advocate [OPUC] - 4. One CC to Sri G Rama Gopal Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies MKP(gsg) ' HIGH COURT 1 DATED:25/06/2025 P- •< • - V » u -- ■ ORDER CRP 1563/2023 t & 18 SEP 2025 m '**^^^vCi>rrent Secy»|>^^ DISMISSING THE CRP