APHC010467352024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2527/2024 Between: 1.VANKALA DURGA VENKATA SURYA PRAKASH @ NANI, S/O. LATE APPANNA, AGED 55 YEARS. EMPLOYEE, R/O. D NO. 5-6-29, LAKSHMIDEVIPETA, ANAKAPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.VANKALA SATYA RAO, S/O. LATE APPANNA, AGED 74 YEARS. RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/AT. D NO. 45-16-5, AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM 530016. 2.VANKALA GOWRI VENKATA TRINADHARAO CHANTI, S/O. LATE APPANNA, AGED 57 YEARS. TEACHER, R/AT. D. NO. 7-4, LAKSHMIDEVIPETA, ANAKAPALLI. 3.CHANDAKA APPALANARASAMMA, W/O. APPARAO, AGED 75 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/AT D. NO. 8-45, NAIDU THOTA, VEPAGUNTA VILLAGE, PENDMLHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4.MOLLI MANGARATNAM, W/O. LATE MALLESH, AGED 68 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/AT. D NO. 4-23, VIDHYUTHNAGAR, GANDHINAGARAM STREET, 2 ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 5.VANKALA AYYALARAJU, S/O. LATE APPANNA, AGED 56 YEARS. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/AT D NO. 5-7-13, BUDDHA NOOKAYYA COLONY, LAKSHMIDEVIPETA, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...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 toBegs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Honble Court against the Decree IN LA. NO.99 Of 2023 IN A.S. NO.8/2021 and Order dt. 19.7.2024 on the file of the X Addl. District Judge, Ajiakapalli, Visaldiapatnam District, IA 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 Suspend the order dt. 19.07.2024 made in LA. No.99/2023 in A.S. No.8/2021, on the file of the X Addl. District Judge, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District, and pass IA 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 may be pleased to Vacate the Interim Order granted in I.A.No. 1 of 2024 in CRP No.2527 of 2024 dated 07-11-2024 and extended from time to time and lastly on 21-03-2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SIVA RAMA KRISHNA KOLLURU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1.PANGI RAJU BABU 2. 3.SARANU PHANI TEJA The Court made the following order: 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2527 OF 2024 ORDER:- 1. The petitioner is the appellant in the appeal vide AS No.8 of 2021, on the file of X Additional District Judge, Anakapalli. It is the case of the petitioner that he was the 4th defendant in suit vide OS No.130 of 2013, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli filed by respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein seeking to pass decree for partition over the suit schedule properties. The said suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement. 2. It is the further case of the petitioner that, the 5th respondent herein/3rd defendant in the suit filed written statement wherein house bearing D.No.5-2-62, Lakshmidevarapeta Village, Anakapalli District was shown as item No.2 though, it was not included in the plaint schedule property. The Trial Court after hearing the parties, partly decreed the said suit by Judgment and Decree dated 08.02.2021, whereunder the said house bearing D.No.5-2-62, was directed to divide the same into six equal shares entitling the plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 a share of 1/6th each and defendant Nos.1 to 4 a share of 1/6th each. 5 3. As already stated, the petitioner herein preferred appeal vide AS No.8 of 2021, on the file of X Additional District Judge, Anakapalli, questioning the said judgment. Pending the said appeal he filed the present application vide IA No.99 of 2023 under Order XLI Rule 27 r/w. 151 of CPC requesting the Court to receive additional documents so as to substantiate his claim over the item No.2 of written statement schedule property. 4. It is further stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that he is absolute owner and possessor of the house in dispute, having purchased the same by Registered Sale Deed dated 19.04.2000. The said application was opposed by the 5th respondent by filing counter affidavit. On perusal of the said counter affidavit, it is categorically admitted by the 3rd defendant/5th respondent herein that the property in dispute was purchased in the name of petitioner with the joint funds of the family for the purpose of his marriage. It is further stated that the petitioner with an evil motive got mutated his name in municipal records and also obtained electricity connection in his name. It is further stated having considered all the above aspects the trial court rejected the case of the petitioner by passed preliminary decree to divide the housing dispute. It is further stated that there 6 are no merits in the application filed by the petitioner and requested to dismiss the same. 5. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent Nos.3 & 5. 6. Perused material available on record. 7. It is not in dispute that, the house bearing D.No.5-2-62, which is item No.2 of written statement, was purchased in the name of petitioner by virtue of Registered Sale Deed dated 19.04.2020. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the said documents viz registered sale deed dated 19.04.2000, house tax receipts and electricity bill could not be placed before the Trial Court. Further on perusal of the averments in the counter affidavit, it is succinctly clear that the 3rd defendant/5th respondent has categorically admitted that the house property was purchased in the name of the petitioner with the funds of joint family. The present application is filed seeking to receive additional documents to substantiate the case of the petitioner over the property in dispute. The proof and relevancy of the documents sought to be produced as additional evidence can be gone into at the time of hearing of the appeal. No prejudice would be caused if the documents are taken on file. 7 8. Further on perusal of Order XLI Rule 27, the Appellate Court shall decide the said application along with appeal and cannot be allowed to take out independent enquiry. The counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, placed reliance on Judgment in Nandam Rama Rao Vs. Battu Rama Rao 1, State of Rajasthan Vs. T.Sahani and Ors.2 and Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another 3. 9. On perusal of the said judgments, this Court time and again held that, whenever an application under Order XLI Rule 27 is filed, the same has to be considered at the time of hearing of the main appeal. On the contrary, the Trial Court has independently considered the said application and dismissed the same. 10. Apart from the same as already noted supra, the 3rd defendant/5th respondent clearly admitted in his counter affidavit that the property was purchased in the name of the petitioner. Having considered the respective pleadings of the parties especially with regard to the averments made by the 3rd defendant/5th respondent that the house property was purchased 1 2013 (6) ALD 754 2 2001 (10) SCC 619 3 2012 (8) SCC 148 8 in the name of the petitioner, the appellate court erred in dismissing the application under dispute by making independent enquiry. Further no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the present application is taken up for considered along with the appeal. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Appellate Court is not sustainable. In view of the above, the instant Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside order dated 19.07.2024 in AS No.8 of 2021. Further, the Appellate Court is directed to consider the application in IA No.99 of 2023 along with the appeal while deciding the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Date.29.07.2025 DR 9 245 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR CRP No.2527 of 2024 Date 29.07.2025 DR