f IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1397 nf 7(^^A Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 04.04.2014 made in I.A.No.2 of 2013 in O.S.No.49 of 2006 on the fiie Of the court of the Senior Civil Judge. Filer Between: AMARAVATI Chittoor District. 1. J. Subadramma, W/o. J. Subbaiah Chetty, D.No.3-36, Bazar Street, Rompicherla District. 2. J. Muni Lakshmi. W/0. Sudhakar, Occ; House hold affairs, R/o. D.No.3- 36, Bazar Street, Rompicherla, Rompicherla Mandal ...Petitioners/Respondents/Defendants AND Occ: House hold affairs, R/o. Rompicherla Mandal, Chittoor Chittoor District. / 1. Md. Basheer Basha (Died) 2. S. Venkatarathnam, S/o. Venkatramaiah, Veedhi, Rompicherla, Rompicherla Mandal Occ; Business, R/o. Balija Chittoor District. ...Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs 1954 OF 2014) LA. NO: 1 OF 2014fCRPMP Kin- Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances s ated in the affidavit filed In support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.49 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Filer, pending disposal of the Civil Revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri S V Muni Reddy * Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K S Murthy The Court made the following: APHC010714562014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: [3505] Between: J. Subadramma, Chittoor Dist. & Ano and Others ...PETmONER(S) AND Md Basheer Basha Died Ano and Others Counsel for the Petltioner(S): 1.S VMUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.KS MURTHY ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 The Court made the following order: The present revision petition is filed aggrieved by order lA.No.2 of 2013 in OS.No.49 of of the Senior Civil Judge, Filer, Chittoor District, the defendants in the suit. The in OS.No.49 of 2006, for specific dated 04.04.2014, passed in 2006, on the file The petitioners are 2. respondents/plaintiffs filed suit of agreement of sale dated 19.11.2005. executed by Sri Jakka Subbaiah Sastry, the husband of the 1 performance one nd and the father of the 2"'" petitioner/2 petitioner/1 defendant petitioner/1®* defendant executed defendant. Pending suit, the 1 nd deed dated 26.11.2011, in favor of the 2 a relinquishment respondent/a"" plaintiff. Subsequently, the l“ respondent/1 nd those circumstances, the 2 plaintiff died on 14.01.2012. In respondent/a"" plaintiff filed an application vide lA.No.2 of 2013, 10 CPC, seeking to permit him to prosecute under Order 22 Rule the suit for the entire suit scheduie property by recognizing his relinquishment deed dated 26.11.2011. The right accrued under opposed by the petitioners/defendants affidavit. Upon hearing the parties the Trial Court, said application was through counter 3 by impugned order dated 04.04.2014, allowed the said application which is assailed in the present revision petition. 3. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondent. 4. It is the case of the 2""' petitioner/2'''' defendant that initially the respondent/1 plaintiff entered into agreement of sale dated 19.11.2005, over the suit schedule property and later he relinquished his share by relinquishment deed dated 26.11.2011, in favor of the 2'"' respondent/2"‘^ plaintiff. 5. The counsel for the petitioners/defendants contended that the relinquishment deed is inadmissible document and the cannot be relied on. He further contended that the agreement of sale dated 19.11.2005, said to have been executed by the original owner, Sri Jakka Subbaiah Sastry, is a rank forged document and prayed to dismiss the application filed by the 2 respondent/2'''^ plaintiff. same nd 6. Though the counsel for the petitioner opposed the order impugned and after arguing the case for some time, the counsel for the petitioners/defendants objected only to the observation made by the Trial Court with regard to the admissibility of 4 relinquishment deed dated 26.11.2011, inasmuch as the same requires stamp duty and registration, as it involves the transfer of the substantial rights over the suit schedule property. 7. Therefore, the observation in respect of the relinquishment deed is to be decided at the relevant point of time but not in the present application filed by the 2"'^ respondent/2"'^ plaintiff. As stated supra, the counsel for the petitioners/defendants did not object to the application filed by the 2"^^ respondent/2"'^ plaintiff, to prosecute the entire suit schedule property by recognizing right of the 2"^ respondent/2'^'^ plaintiff as per the relinquishment deed dated 26.11.2011, the order impugned in the revision petition does not warrant any interference of this Court. 8. As already stated supra, the petitioners/defendants have raised objection only with regard to the observation made by the Trial Court in respect of the admissibility of relinquishment deed dated 26.11.2011, this Court also finds force in the argument. As there is no occasion for the Trial Court to examine the validity or admissibility of relinquishment deed dated 26.11.2011, nonetheless, a passing remark was made about the 5 S relinquishment deed, which is unwarranted and the same is not supported by any finding. 9. In that view of the matter, the observation made by the Trial with regard to admissibility of relinquishment deed dated 26.11.2011, is set aside. It is open to the parties to raise such an of trial. With the above observation. Court objection during the course the revision petitipn is disposed of. all miscellaneous, pending As a sequel thereto, applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P.VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTtO'N OFFICER To 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Filer, Chittoor District. 2. One CC to Sri S V Muni Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri K S Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies TK HIGH COURT DATED:28/01/2025 ORDER I* 0 2 APR ?!)?5 I ^ . Currenl Section ^'^^sostch^^^ CRP.No.1397 of 2014 DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION