APHC010319482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1518 OF 2025 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 beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the Decree AND Order dt.21.4.2025 in I.A.No.280/2024 in O.S.No.21/2012 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. Between: 1. T. Hrishikeshava reddy(died), (Died) 2. Smt. Y. Kiranmayee,, W/o. Dr. Y. Krishna Mohan Reddy, Aged about 61 years, R/o. D.No.3/156, Byrmal Street, Nandyal, Kurnool District 3. Smt. Ahalya,, W/o. Rajasekhar Reddy, Aged about 37 years, R/o. H.N0.4/127-B Nehru Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District 4. Smt. T. Jaya Lakshmi,, W/o. Late T. Hrishikeshava Reddy, Aged about 71 years, R/o. Kapu Veedhi, Near Market, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District 5. Sri. T. Ananta Narasa Reddy,, S/o. Late T. Hrishikeshava Reddy, Aged about 53 years, R/o. Kapu Veedhi, Near Market, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District 6. Sri. T. Amara Simha Reddy, S/o. Late T. Hrishikeshava Reddy, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Kapu Street, Near Market, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District ...Petitioners AND 1. D Rukminamma, W/o. Gopa! Reddy, Aged about 79 years, R/o. D.No.25/117, Sanjeevanagar, Nandyal, Kurnool District 2. Sri T Narasimha Reddy, S/o. T. PuHa Reddy, Aged about 73 years, R/o. Kapu Veedhi, Near Market, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District 3. Sri G Madhukar Reddy, S/o. G. Suryanarayana Reddy, Aged about 55 years, R/o. Kapu Veedhi, Near Market, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District 4. Smt Aparna, W/o. Venkata Reddy, Aged about 36 years H.No.28/5/77/2, Anantapur R/o. 5. Kumari Maniswini, D/o. K. Venkata Reddy, Aged about 9 years. Natural Guardian, Aged about 36 years, R/o. H.No.28/5/77/2, Anantapur 6. Smt Padmini, W/o. Kiran Kumar Reddy, Aged about 36 years, R/o. Plot No.3, Manasa Apartments, Shakulal, Begumpet, Hyderabad 7. Kumari Leela, D/o. Kiran Kumar Reddy, Minor, Rep. by Mother, Natural Guardian,Smt. Padmini, W/o. Kiran Kumar Reddy, Aged about 36 years, R/o. Plot No.3, Manasa Apartments, Shakulal, Begumpet, Hyderabad 8. Smt Suneetha, W/o. Sreekanth Reddy, Aged about 38 years, R/o. D.No.4- 1-418-A, Maruthi Nagar, Kadapa 9. Smt Rohini, , D/o. Subbarami Reddy, Aged about 41 years, R/o. Yerramuni Reddy Colony, Proddatur, Kadapa District 10. Smt Neeraja, W/o. Vamsidhar Reddy, Aged about 37 years, R/o. 4TH Floor, Teja Apartments, Opp Mahindra Show Room, Tekki, Nandyal, Kurnool District 11. Smt Madhuri, W/o. Dr. J. Ravindra Reddy, Aged about 46 years, R/o. Kapu Veedhi, Near Market, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District 12. Smt Bharathy, W/o. Eswar Reddy, Aged about 39 years, R/o. D.No.21-16 Air India Colony, Kohina, Santa Crux, Bombay 13. Smt Radha, , W/o. S. Venkata Krishna Reddy, Aged about 37 years, R/o. D.No. 12/2/716, Sai Nagar, Ananthapur 14. Smt T Uma, W/o. T. Vegendra Reddy, Aged about 45 years, R/o. Kapu Veedhi, Near Market, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District 15. Smt P Goury Reddy, W/o. P. Veera Reddy, Aged about 46 years, R/o. H.No.6-3-596/51, Venkataramana Colony, Khairatabad, Hyderabad 16. G Siva Prasad Reddy, S/o. Late Rami Reddy, Aged about 71 years, R/o. R/o. 4TH Floor, Teja Apartments, Opp Mahindra Show Room, Tekki, Nandyal, Kurnool District ...Respondents/Respondent 3 to 11 &13to18 lA 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 to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.21/2012 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. Counsel for the Petitioners: SURAGANI KRISHNA VAMSI Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following order: '^4 APHC010319482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Tuesday, Eighth Day of July, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.1518/2025 Between: 1 .Sri T.Hrishikeshava Reddy (Died), 2.Snnt Y.Kiranmayee, W/o Dr.Y.Krishna Mohan Reddy, aged about 61 years, R/o D.No.3/156, Byrmal street, Nandyal, Kurnool District. S.Smt.Ahalya, W/o Rajasekhar Reddy, aged about 37 years, R/o H.N0.4/127-B, Nehru road, Proddatur, Kadapa District. 4.Smt.T.Jaya Lakshmi, W/o late T.Hrishikeshava Reddy, aged about 71 years, R/o Kapu Veedhi, near Market, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District. 5.Sri T.Anantha Narasa Reddy, S/o Late T.Hrishikeshava Reddy, aged about 53 years, R/o Kapu Veehi, near market, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District. 6.Sri T.Amara Simha Reddy, S/o late T.Hrishikeshava Reddy, aged about 50 years, R/o Kapu street, near market, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District. ...Petitioners / defendants / Defendants No.1,2,12,19 to 21 And 1 .Smt.D.Rukminamma, W/o Gopal Reddy, aged about 79 years, R/o D.No.25/117, Sanjeevanagar, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ....Respondent / Petitioner / Plaintiff 2 BSB,J C.R.P.No.l518of2025 2.Sri T^Narasimha Reddy, S/o T.Pulla Reddy, aged about 73 R/o Kapu veedhi District. S.Sri G.Madhukar Reddy, S/o G.Suryanarayana Reddy, aged about V veedhi, near market, Jammalamadugu, Y.S.R.Kadapa District. 4.Smt.Aparna, W/o Venkata Reddy, aged about 36 R/o H.No.28/5/77/2, Ananthapur. S.Kumari Manswini, D/o K.Venkata Reddy, aged about 9 years Natural Guardian, aged about 36 years, R/o H.No 28/5/77/2 Ananthapur. 6.Smt.Padmini, W/ o Kiran Kumar Reddy, aged about 36 R/o Plot No.3, Manasa Apartments, Shakulal, Bequmpet Hyderabad. ’ _ years, market, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa near years. years, 7. Kumari Leela, D/o Kiran Kumar Reddy, minor, represented by mother natural guardian Smt.Padmini W/o Kiran Kumar Reddy, aged about 36 years, R/o Plot No.3,Manasa Apartments, Shakulal Begumpet, Hyderabad. 8.Smt.Suneetha, W/o Sreekanth Reddy, aged about 38 R/o D.No.4-1-418-A, Maruthinagar, Kadapa. years. 9.Smt.Rohini, D/o Subbarami Reddy, aged about 41 years R/o Yerramuni Reddy Colony, Proddatur, Kadapa District. lO.Smt.Neeraja, W/o Vamsidhar Reddy, aged about 37 years, R/o 4 floor, Teja apartments, opposite to Mahindra Show Room Tekki, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 11 .Smt.Madhuri, W/o D.J.Ravindra Reddy, aged about 46 years, R/o Kapu veedhi, near market, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District. 12.Smt.Bharathy, W/o Eswar Reddy, aged about 39 years, R/o D.No.21-16, Air India Colony, Kohina, Santa Crux, Bombay. 13.Smt.Radha, W/o S.Venkata Krishna Reddy, aged about 37 R/o D.No.12/2/716, Sai Nagar, Ananthapur. years. 3 BSB,J C.R.P.No.1518 of 2025 14.Smt.T.Uma, W/o T.Vegendra Reddy, aged about 45 years, R/o Kapu veedhi, near market, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District. 15.Smt.P.Goury reddy, W/o P.Veera Reddy, aged about 46 years R/o H.No.6-3-596/51, Venkataramana colony, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 16.G.Siva Prasad Reddy, S/o Late Rami Reddy, aged about 71 years, R/o 4*'^ floor, Teja apartments, opposite to Mahindra Show Room, Tekki, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ..Respondents / Respondents / Defendants 3 tol 1 & 13 to 18 Counsel for the petitioners: I.Suragani Krishna Vamsi Counsel for the respondents: Nil The Court made the following Order: This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 21.04.2025 allowing I.A.No.280 of 2024 in O.S.No.21 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Ill-Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal filed by the plaintiff under Order XXII, rule 4 and Order VI, rule 17 and Section151 of C.P.C to add the wife / respondent No.19, sons / R20 and 21 of the deceased 1®* defendant / 1®‘ respondent as defendants No.19 to 21 in the suit and making necessary amendments in the plaint. 2. The suit was filed to declare that the will dated 16.12.2011 making disposition of the land by G.Devalathamma if not true, valid 4 BSB,J C.R.P.No.l518of2025 or genuine and consequently to declare title of the plaintiff suit schedule properties and further direct possession of the suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs. over the defendants to deliver 3. Pending the suit, the defendant No.1 leaving behind his wife / died on 10.01.2021 respondent No.19, sons / respondents No.20 and 21 and a daughter respondent No.12 / defendant No.12 who is already on record. 4. The counter filed by some of the respondents bares the counter was filed by respondents a title that No.1, 2 and 4. Infact respondent No.1 died. Moreover, in the counter it was pleaded that the deceased defendant No.1 executed a registered gift deed dated schedule to his 23.12.2020 gifting items Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint ‘A daughter / defendant No.12 and he got the said properties through a registered Will dated 16.12.2011 which is under challenge in the suit. Therefore, these contesting respondents opposed impleading of as they do not have any interest in the respondent No.19 to 21 property. 5. However, the trial Court allowed the petition for impleading the proposed parties and making the consequential amendments plaint, on the ground that unless and until the to the proposed parties are brought on record as parties to the suit, it is not possible for the Court to adjudicate the lis between the parties. 6. The order shows that no prior notice was given to the proposed parties either to accept the case of the petitioner or the 5 BSB,J C.R.P.No.1518 of 2025 case pleaded in the counter. If at all the alleged gift by the respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.12 is accepted by the respondents No.19 to 21, they need not be brought on record as they apparently have no interest in the property. However, without prior service of notice to them, the case of neither party can be accepted. The order of the trial Court further shows that it ignored the gift deed pleaded in the counter and mis-lead by the will which is the subject matter of the suit. For the purpose of impleading the proposed parties, it is necessary to examine the contention regarding the registered gift deed to examine whether it is necessary to implead the proposed parties or not. It is important to note that as they were not served with prior notice. Aggrieved by the order allowing them to be impleaded, they preferred the revision along with the other contesting respondents. Thus, it appears that they sail with the contesting respondents and thereby accepting the plea of registered gift deed being executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.12. in these circumstances, without examining the crucial aspects, allowing the petition in a mechanical manner is the irregularity committed by the trial Court. Since, the trial Court failed to prior notice to the respondents No.19 to 21, they had no chance to either oppose or support the relief claimed in the petition. Under all these circumstances, it is necessary to interfere with the impugned order. serve In the result, civil revision petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 21.04.2025 in I.A.No.280 of 2024 in O.S.No.21 of 2012 the file of the Court of Ill-Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. The trial Court is directed to permit the respondents No.19 7. on 6 5). BSB,J C.R.P.No.1518 of2025 to 21 to file their counter and thereafter hear and pass appropriate by any of the observations by necessary to clarify the anomaly indicated in this order as to who filed the counter already There shall be no orders as to costs. order afresh without being influenced the order. It is also on record. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed. any. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE OFFICER To, 1. The III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. 2. One CC to Sri Suragani Krishna Vamsi, Advocate [OPUC 3. Two CD Copies PNM RAM HIGH COURT DATED;08/07/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 1518 OF 2025 ^22JUL 2025 jS] ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS