APHC010566862024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 34 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, set aside the order dated 24-09-2024 in LA.No.382/2023 in O.S.No.60 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, Kurnool District. Between: Golla Subbamma, W/o. G.C.H. Ramulu, Aged about 68 years, House wife, R/o. H.No.5-5-338, Reservoir Road, Tirupati Town and District. ...PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF AND 1. B. Prasad, S/o. Danamaiah @ Kondanna, Aged about 47 years, R/o. H.No.8-94, M.V. Nagar, Allagadda Town and Mandal, Kurnool District. 2. P Prabavathi, W/o. Venkata Subbaiah, Aged about 44 years, R/o. H.N0.1-5A, Pagidda Village, Kadapa District. ...THIRD PARTIES 3. Battula Rama Subbamma, W/o. Chinna Hussain, Aged about 60 House wife, R/o. D.No.4-5-107, Lingamaiah Street, Allagadda Town and Mandal, Kurnool District. years. 4. Yeddula Rama Lakshmamma, W/o. Mallikarjuna, Aged about 55 years, R/o. D.NO.4-5-107-A (Upstairs), Lingamaiah Street, Allagadda Town and Mandal, Kurnool District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 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 grant Stay of all further proceedings of Suit in O.S.No. 60/2018 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, Kurnool District. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Ms. AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : SRI BUGULU SREETEJA The Court made the following ORDER : “J APHC010566862024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Friday, the Eleventh Day of July, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.34 of 2025 Between: Golla Subbamma, W/o.G.C.H.Ramulu, aged about 68 years House wife, R/o.H.No.5-5-338, Reservoir Road, Tirupathi Town and District. ...Petitioner / Plaintiff and I.B.Prasad, S/o.Danamaiah @ Kondanna, aged about 47 years, R/o.H.No.8-94, M.V.Nagar, Allagadda Town and Mandai, Kurnool District. 2.P.Prabavathi, W/o.Venkata Subbaiah, aged about 44 years R/o.H.No.1-5A, Pagidda village, Kadapa District. ...Third Parties 3.Battula Rama Subbamma, W/o.Chinna Hussain, aged about 60 years. House wife, R/o.D.No.4-5-107, Lingamaiah Street, Allagadda Town and Mandai, Kurnool District. 4.Yeddula Rama Lakshmamma, W/o.Mallikarjuna, aged about 55 years. House wife, R/o.D.No.4-5-107-A (upstairs), Lingamaiah Street, Allagadda Town and Mandai, Kurnool District. ...Respondents / Respondents Counsel for the petitioner; I.Narasimha Rao Gudiseva Counsel for the respondents: I.Bugulu Sree Teja 2.Ayesha Azma.S 2 BSB,J C.R.P.No.34 of 2025 The Court made the following order; This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24.09.2024 allowing I.A.No.382 of 2023 in O.S.No.60 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda filed by the third parties under Order I, Rule 10 and sectionISI C.P.C., to implead the petitioners No.1 and 2 as the defendants No.3 and 4 in the suit and direct the respondent No.1 / plaintiff to make necessary amendments in the plaint. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff. The respondents No.1 and 2 in the revision petition are the petitioners in I.A.No.382 of 2023. The respondents No.3 and 4 in the revision petition are the defendants No.1 and 2. 2. For the purpose of better understanding, the genealogy of the parties is noted as below; Bathula Tikkanna (husband) - Venkatamma (wife) 3. i (son) Bathula Subbanna i Pakkiramma (wife No.2) Lakshmamma (wife No.1) i i (son-1) Ramasubbanna (he and his wife died issueless) (daughters-3) 1 .plaintiff 2.defendant No.1 3.defendant No.2 (son) Danamaiah @ Danam @ Kondiah i (daughter) Petitioner No.2 (son) Petitioner No.1 3 BSB,J C.R.P.No.34 of 2025 The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of four items of properties into three equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff and put her in possession of the same. The case of the plaintiff is briefly as follows:- Item Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint schedule are the properties of the late Bathula Subbanna. He has two wives viz., Lakshumamma (1®^ wife) and Pakkiramma (2'^'^ wife). Through Lakshumamma, he has one son by name Danamaiah @ Kondanna. Through Pakkiramma, he has three daughters and one son. The plaintiff is one daughter and the defendants No.1 and 2 are the other daughters. The son is Ramasubbanna. Ramasubbanna’s wife died long back. They had no children. Danamaiah as one party and the plaintiff and the defendants as the other party partitioned their properties under a registered partition deed dated 26.07.1960 vide document No.2138 of 1960. Items No.1 to 3 of the plaint schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 and 2. The property in item No.4 of the plaint schedule was purchased by Pakkiramma under a registered sale deed dated 20.05.1968 vide document No. 1032 of 1968. Thus, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition of items No.1 to 4. 4. Pending suit, the children (son and daughter) of Danamaiah filed I.A.No.382 of 2023 to implead them in the suit as the defendants No.3 and 4 contending briefly as follows:- The petitioners came to know about the suit proceedings recently. The petitioners are sharers in the suit schedule properties along^v\mh the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 and 2. The father 5. 4 BSB.J C.R.P.No.34 of 2025 of the petitioners is the brother of the parties to the grandmother of the petitioners and the suit are the wives of Bathula Subbanna. suit. The mother of the parties to the Items No.1 to 3 of the plaint schedule property belong to Ramasubbanna who brother of the parties to the is the- suit. Ramasubbanna died intestate without any legal heir. Being the brother's son and daughter, the petitioners are sharers in the plaint schedule properties. Hence, they are to be impleaded in the suit. 6. The petition was opposed by the by filing the counter stating briefly as follows:- respondent No.1 / plaintiff While reiterating the relationship stated it is denied that the already in the plaint, pfcfiiiioners have share in the plaint schedule properties. The parties to the suit alone have share in the plaint schedule properties. The petitioners heirs of late Ramasubbanna. are not successors or legal Item No.4 of the suit schedule property was purchased by the grandmother of the parties to the suit. The plaintiff and the defendants are siblings. Late Battula Subbanna gifted item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule property under a registered gift deed dated 26.07.1960 vide document No.2138 of 1960 in favour of Ramasubbanna. Item No.4 plaint schedule property was succeeded by the parties to the suit. Thus, the petitioners are third parties and do not have the plaint schedule properties. The of the any right in petitioners got other properties from their father and mother. This petition was filed only to harass the parties to the suit, without having Hence, it is pleaded to dismiss the any right in the properties. petition. 5 BSB.J C.R.P.No.34 of 2025 The respondents No.2 and 3 / defendants No.1 and 2 filed a separate counter opposing the petition stating briefly as follows:- The statements of the petitioners are very vague. It is false and incorrect to state that the petitioners are sharers in the plaint schedule properties along with the parties to the suit. The genealogy of the family of the petitioners is not true. The petitioners are not necessary or proper parties to the suit. In the suit filed by the petitioner before the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Allagadda, it was held that the 1®* petitioner is not the sharer and do not have any right in some of the plaint schedule properties. These respondents will file relevant documents of the said suit during the course of the hearing of this petition. The suit was filed in the year 2018, and is coming for framing of issues. The petitioners have no merit in the petition. The respondent No.1 is the absolute owner of item No.4. They prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. After hearing both parties, the trial Court allowed the petition holding that the petitioners are necessary parties to the suit since the relationship of the parties to the petition is admitted and the suit is for partition and the question whether the petitioners have share in the suit schedule properties cannot be decided in this petition, and has to be decided after the trial in the suit. 8. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed by the 1®^ respondent / plaintiff. The learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that the proposed parties who are related to the deceased Ramasubbanna have no share in the property at all as they are not natural brother or sister to him, whereas the plaintiff 9. 6 ; I BSB,J C.R.P.No.34of 2025 and the defendants No.1 and 2 are the natural sisters of late ought not to have no right at all in as item No.1 to 3 of Ramasubbanna and therefore, the trial Court allowed impleadment of the petitioners who have the properties left by Ramasubbanna shown the plaint schedule properties. He further submitted that insofar as item No,4 is concerned, the petitioners did not deny the pleading in that regard and they have no right in the said property as well. 10. The respondents No.3 and 4 / defendants No.1 and 2 sailed with the revision petitioner. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents No.1 petitioners in !.A.No.382 and 2 herein / f 2023 contended that the plaintiff changed the versions about the facts pleaded in the plaint and stated in the counter. In this regard she submitted OT that the plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that the document dated No.2138 of 1960 is the partition deed 26.07.1960 bearing whereas in the counter, it is described as gift deed executed by late Battula Subbanna in favour of Ramasubbanna. She further submitted that in the plaint it was pleaded that item No.4 of the plaint schedule property was purchased by the mother of the parties to the suit, whereas in the counter it was stated that the said property was purchased by their grandmother. She also submitted that the plaint pleadings described the plaint schedule properties as ancestral properties and therefore Battula Subbanna had no exclusive right to gift these properties to his son. Under these circumstances, she submitted that these are the issues which shall be examined during the is necessary to implead course of the trail and therefore it i petitioners as parties to the suit. 7 BSB,J C.R.P.No.34 of 2025 In reply, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the grandmother referred in the counter of respondent No.1 / plaintiff is the maternal grandmother. He further submitted that document relating to the case filed by the first petitioner in I.A.No.383 of 2023 may also be considered. 12. The document No.1 filed along with the plaint i.e., gift deed dated 26.07.1960 shows that Bathula Subbanna executed a registered settlement deed gifting away items No.1 to 3 of the plaint schedule to Bathula Ramasubbanna. The document No.2 filed along with the plaint i.e., the gift deed dated 20.05.1968 shows that Bathula Venkatamm.a, .mother of Bathula Subbanna, gifted away her Ac.2.33 Cents of property in survey No.860 in equal halves to Bathula Danam @ Kondaiah and Bathula Ramasubbanna. Thus, each one of them got Ac.1.16 >2 Cents. This is shown as item No.4 of the plaint schedule. Therefore, all the four items of properties in the plaint schedule are the properties of Bathula Ramasubbanna. They are sought to be partitioned by his natural sisters who are the plaintiff No.1 and the defendants No.1 and 2. While so, the children of Bathula Danamaiah who is the step brother of Bathula Ramasubbanna filed the petition in I.A.No.382 of 2023 to implead them in the suit as the defendants No.3 and 4. Just because, the plaintiff pleaded that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties, the petitioners want to claim a share by getting themselves impleaded. It is pleaded in the plaint by describing the plaint document No.1 dated 26.07.1960 as a partition deed, instead of a gift deed. Its description was corrected in the list of documents annexed to the 13. I BSB,J C.R.P.No.34 of 2025 plaint, but corresponding correction was not carried out in the pleadings in the plaint. The document was also filed along with the plaint. Therefore, the petitioners cannot take undue advantage of the misdescription of the document or the nature of the property. Since the petitioners cannot claim a share in the properties of Bathula Ramasubbanna in the presence of his natural siblings, they are not necessary parties. Therefore, there is no need to go for trial to decide whether or not they have a share in the property as there is no dispute of the documents relied by the plaintiffs. In fact, the petitioners also clearly asserted their rights properties of Bathula Ramasubbanna. As such, the trial Court erred in allowing the petition. in the 14. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order dated 24.09.2024 in I.A.No.382 of 2023 in O.S.No.60 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda is set aside and the petition in I.A.No.382 of 2023 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed. SD/- K.KASIRAO ACHARI [ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i; SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, Kurnool District. 2. One CC to SRI. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Ms. AYESHA AZMA S Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI. BUGULU SREETEJA Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 6. Two CD Copies Chp TAC T : HIGH COURT DATED:11/07/2025 \ ORDER CRP NO. 34 OF 2025 if 3 0 JUL 2025 Ig ALLOWING THE CRP.