APHC010274552020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1086/2020 Between: Mallika Ramana Murthy ...PETITIONER AND Pukkala Annapoorna and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TURAGA SAI SURYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SANAPALA VINOD KUMAR 2. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1086 of 2020 ORDER: 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order dated 13.02.2020 passed in I.A.No.287 of 2020 in O.S.No.85 of 2018 by the Principal District Judge, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The Petitioner is the Plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed for declaration of title on the strength of a Will said to have been executed in his favour by late Pukkella Venkata Bhaskar Rao on 25.12.2005 and for consequential permanent injunction. The Petitioner/Plaintiff claims that the Will was executed in his favour as the deceased Pukkella Venkata Bhaskara Rao was the close friend of the Petitioner’s father and was taking care of his well being from his young age. 3. The Defendant No.1 filed their written statement disputing the claim of the Petitioner/Plaintiff. The Defendant No.1 is claiming to be the wife of deceased Pukkella Venkata Bhaskara Rao disputed the Will in favour of the Petitioner/Plaintiff and claimed that the deceased Bhaskara Rao had taken care of the well being of the Petitioner/Plaintiff from his young age. It is the case of the Defendant No.1 that the deceased Pukkella Venkata Bhaskara Rao had died due to prolonged illness on 23.03.2006. 4. In Paragraph 7 of the written statement it was pleaded that the Plaintiff has no right or title over the plaint schedule property and that he colluded with some others and brought into existence some forged and fictitious document styling to be the Will dated 18.10.2005, which is concocted and created only to defeat the right of the Defendant No.1. 3 5. In additional written statement these facts were reiterated at Paragraph 6. The Defendant No.2 filed his written statement admitting that late Pukkella Venkata Bhaskara Rao died on 23.03.2006 but relied on the Will dated 18.10.2005 in his favour. 6. In the course of trial i.e. after cross examination of the Defendant No.1 as D.W.1, an application was filed i.e. I.A.No.287 of 2020 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the additional written statement by substituting the date from 25.08.2007 to 25.12.2005 on the ground that the same is a typographical error. The said application was opposed by the Petitioner/Plaintiff on the ground that the amendment amounts to withdrawal of admission made by the Defendant No.1. The trial Court vide impugned order allowed the same. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 7. Heard Sri K. Pridhvi Raj, proxy counsel for Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada and Sanpala Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondents. 8. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in the original written statement or in the additional written statement, the Defendant No.1 did not deny specifically about the Will dated 25.12.2005 in favour of the Petitioner and that the Defendant No.1 had only denied about the Will dated 18.10.2005 and as such the amendment amounts to withdrawal of an admission made by the Defendant No.1. 9. The learned counsel for the Respondents reiterated the submissions as made before the trial Court. 10. This Court after hearing the Respective counsels and after examining Paragraph 6 of the additional written statement is of the opinion that the date of the Will is mentioned as ‘25.08.2007’ appears to be a typographical error as it does not go along with the pleadings at Paragraph 6. For ready reference, Paragraph 6 of the additional written statement of the Defendant No.1 is extracted below:- 4 “The Defendant No.1 submits that as the Plaintiff has no right or title as per the record of rights act because he is not the real owner of the schedule mentioned property nor is in possession of the said property, and he colluded with some others and brought into existence some forged and fictitious documents for the purpose of laying false claim in respect of the plaint schedule property and brought into existence a document styling to be the Will dated 25.08.2007 are nominal and created and they are not binding and not acted upon the Defendant.” 11. A reading of the above Paragraph shows that the Defendant No.1 has pleaded that the Plaintiff has no right or title over the schedule property and brought into existence the forged and fictitious documents. As the written statement was filed in response to the plaint where under reliance was placed on the Will dated 25.08.2007, the Paragraph (6) of the additional written statement and written statement has to be construed with reference to the Will referred in the plaint. It appears that the date of the Will is a typographical error and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the trial Court. 12. Apart from that the emphasis of the counsel for the Petitioner is with regard to non-denial of the admission. As the issue pertains to a Will, the admission or denial by the Defendant No.1 would be of little significance as the Plaintiff being the propounder of the Will is required under law to prove and establish the execution of Will by removing all suspicious circumstances. Therefore, even if it is considered that the Defendant No.1 has admitted in her written statement about the execution of the Will dated 25.12.2005, the same would be of little significance. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 09.01.2025 IS 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1086 of 2020 Date: 09.01.2025 IS