Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22050 (AP)

JAAYAPPA v. H.BHARATHI

CRP/952/2021 · 2025-01-07

Nyapathy Vijay

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010122142021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 707/2021 Between: Jaayappa and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND H Bharathi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 952/2021 Between: Jaayappa and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND H Bharathi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N RANGA REDDY The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.R.P.Nos.707 and 952 of 2021 COMMON ORDER: CRP.No.707 of 2021 is filed questioning the common order dated 25.01.2021 in I.A.No.204 of 2020 in O.S.No.131 of 2015 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira. 2. CRP.No.952 of 2021 is filed questioning the common order dated 25.01.2021 in I.A.No.234 of 2020 in O.S.No.131 of 2015 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira 3. Petitioners are the Defendants. The Respondents/Plaintiffs filed the suit seeking for partition and separate possession of Plaintiffs’ share in the suit schedule properties. As per the plaint, the Plaintiffs are the grand- daughter and grand-son of Defendant No.1. The Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the daughters of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.4 is the grand-son of Defendant No.1 and son of Defendant No.2. It was contended that Defendant No.1 had three daughters namely, (1)Parvatamma (2)Gangamma and (3) Rathamma. The Plaintiffs are children of Gangamma, who expired. 4. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the Defendant No.1 and his two brothers namely Kambanna and Ramachandrappa had divided the ancestral properties and the suit schedule properties fell to the share of 3 Defendant No.1 and are in the name of Defendant No.1 as per the 1B Register and Adangals. Since the property in the hands of Defendant No.1 is an ancestral property, the suit was filed for partition. In the said suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.234 to recall PW.1 to give evidence with regard to 1B Extract and Adangals. I.A.No.204 was filed to receive additional documents which are Adangals standing in the name of brothers of Defendant No.1. These applications were filed to establish the partition of properties between Defendant No.1 and his brothers. 5. The applications were opposed by the Defendants/Petitioners herein on the ground that the suit is coming for cross-examination of Defendant No. 1 and these applications could not have been filed after commencement of trial. It is therefore, their plea that the above applications were filed only with an intent to fill up the lacunas in the evidence of the Plaintiffs. 6. The Trial Court allowed the application I.A.No.204 of 2020 to receive the documents subject to proof of relevancy and admissibility. Consequently, I.A.Nos.233 and 234 filed to reopen and recall PW.1 were also allowed on payment of costs of Rs.500/- to the Defendants. Hence, the present revision petitions are filed. 7. Heard Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondents. 8. The documents that are sought to be filed are only revenue records/public documents and the applications were filed before the 4 conclusion of the cross-examination of D.W.1. Considering the defence of the Petitioners in their written statements, the trial Court was of the opinion that these documents are prima facie relevant to establish the case said to be filed by the Respondents/Plaintiffs. 9. There is no bar for the trial Court to receive documents even after commencement of trial, provided, the explanation offered by the Petitioners is found to be satisfactory. As the documents were filed during trial stage only, the Petitioners cannot plead any prejudice. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders impugned. 10. The Civil Revision Petitions are therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 07.01.2025 KLP