if IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 17 OF 2018 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by Order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati dated 12th day of December, 2017 in I.A. No.905 of 2017 in OS No.797 of 2011. the Between: K Krishna Reddy, S/o. K. Ranga Reddy, Hindu, aged about 72. years, Kuchivaripalli Village, Kotala Post, Chandragiri Mandal 2. K. Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy, Hindu, aged about 41 years, Kuchivaripalli Village, Kotala Post, Chandragiri Mandal ...Petitioners/Petitioners/Plaintiffs 1. AND 1. K Ramachandra Reddy (Died) 2. K. Subramanyam Reddy, S/o. K. Ranga Reddy, Hindu, age 62 years. Residing at Gollapalli Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal. 3. Dr. P. V. Parthasarathi, S/o. P. Venkata Narasimhulu, Hindu, aged about 42 years. Doctor, Peddakapu Layout, Tirupati. 4. Dr. O. SunithaSagar, D/o. Vidya Sagar, Hindu, aged about 39 years, R/o. Door No. 616/B, Peddakapu Layout, Tirupati. 5. K. Rajeswara Reddy, S/o. Ramamnadha Reddy, Hindu, aged about 53 years, R/o. A Pangampeta Village and Post, Chandragiri Mandal. 6. KathuruPrabhakar Reddy, S/o. Kalathuru Munikrishna Reddy, Hindu, aged about 57 years, R/o. D.No.155, BRT, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad. * 7. K.Saiyamma, S/o. Late K. Ranga Reddy, Hindu, aged about 48 years, W/o. Late K. Venkatasubba Reddy, R/o. Gollapalli Village and Post, Tirupati Rural Mandal. 8. K. Lakshmi Kanthamma, W/o. Late K. Ramachandra Reddy, Hindu, aged about 50 years 9. K. Thulasirami Reddy, S/o. Late K. Ramachandra Reddy, Hindu, aged about 60 years. 10.K. Niranjan Reddy, S/o. Late K. Ramachandra Reddy, Hindu, aged about 43 years. (Respondents 8 to 10 are resident of door No.7-24, Vasavi Nagar, M.R.Palli Village and Post, Tirupati) 11.K. Sujatha, w/o. K.Mohanarami Reddy, D/o. Late K. Ramachandra Reddy, Hindu, aged about 40 years, R/o. Plot No.404, 4th Floor, K.K. Towers, New Balaji Colony, Tirupati. ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2017 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 order for stay of suit in OS. No.797 of 2011 pending an the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, till disposal of the civil revision petition lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Between: Dr. P. V. Parthasarathi, S/o. P. Venkata Narasimhulu, Hindu, aged about 42 years, Doctor, Peddakapu Layout, Tirupati. ...Petitioners/Petitioners/Plaintiffs AND 1. K Krishna Reddy, S/o. K. Ranga Reddy, Hindu, aged about 72 years, Kuchivaripalli Village, Kotala Post, Chandragiri Mandal 2. K. Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy, Hindu, aged about 41 years, Kuchivaripalli Village, Kotala Post, Chandragiri Mandal 3. K Ramadhandra Reddy (Died) 4. K. Subramanyam Reddy, S/o. K. Ranga Reddy, Hindu, age 62 years. Residing at Gollapalli Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal. 5. Dr. O SunithaSagar, D/o. Vidya Sagar, Hindu, aged about 39 years, R/o. Door No. 616/B, Peddakapu Layout, Tirupati. 6. K. Rajeswara Reddy, S/o. Rarnamnadha Reddy, Hindu, aged about 53 R/o. A Pangampeta Village and Post, Chandragiri Mandal. 7. Kathuru Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. Kalathuru Munikrishna Reddy, Hindu, aged about 57 years, R/o. D.No.155, BRT, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad. 8. K.Saiyamma, S/o. Late K. Ranga Reddy, Hindu, aged about 48 years, W/o. Late K. Venkatasubba Reddy, R/o. Gollapalli Village and Post, Tirupati Rural Mandal. 9. K. Lakshmi Kanthamma, W/o. Late K. Ramachandra Reddy, Hindu, aged about 50 years years. 10.K. Thulasirami Reddy, S/o. Late K. Ramachandra Reddy, Hindu, aged about 60 years. 11.K. Niranjan Reddy, S/o. Late K. Ramachandra Reddy, Hindu, aged about 43 years. (Respondents 8 to 10 are resident of door No.7-24, Vasavi Nagar, M.R.Palli Village and Post, Tirupati) 12. K. Sujatha, w/o. K.Mohanarami Reddy, D/o. Late K. Ramachandra Reddy, Hindu, aged about 40 years, R/o. Plot No.404, 4th Floor, K.K. Towers, New Balaji Colony, Tirupati. ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants 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 Vacate the interim order dated 03-01-2018 passed in lA No. 1 of 2018 in CRP No. 17 of 2018 Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 & 8, 9: Sri M/S Bharadwaj Associates Counsel for the Respondents No.2,7,10 & 11: None Appeared The Court made the following order: APHC011046962017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 17/2018 Between: K Krishna Reddy And Another and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND K Ramachandra Reddy Died And 10 Others ...RESPONDENT(S) and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAMALAKSHMANA REDDY SANEPALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES 2.JAGAN KATIKA 3. ■# 2 The Court made the following order; The present revision petition is filed against order dated 12.12.2017, passed in IA.No.905 of 2017 in OS.No.797 of 2011, the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs who filed the above suit seeking to pass judgment and decree directing the defendant Nos.1 & 2 to effect division of plaint B schedule properties and to allot plaint C schedule property in petitioners/plaintiffs. Alternatively, they sought similar extent of property by meets and bounds, taking into consideration of good and bad qualities of the plaint B schedule properties, and put them in separate possession of plaint C schedule property. Pending the suit the petitioners/plaintiffs filed application vide IA.No.905 of 2017, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment to the plaint. The proposed amendment is extracted as under; on the favor of "PROPOSED AMENDMENT: 1. Add in Para 6 of the plaint "the said extent of Ac.06.00 cents in Sy.No.1/1 i.e., the property mentioned in the regd settlement deed dt.17-04-1962 executed by late K. Rami Reddy in favour of K. Ramachandra Reddy, K. Krishna Reddy and K. Subramanyam Reddy as "B" schedule in the suit schedule". 2. Delete "B" schedule properties in para 10 In 3"^ line and insert "D" schedule properties in that place. Like that delete 1/3 share and insert 1/4" share and delete "B" schedule properties and :5 insert "D" schedule properties in the said places in para 10 in 8‘^ line. 3. Add in Para 11 of the plaint in 12‘^ line after particulars "the said property is shown as "C" schedule in the plaint and "the said "C" schedule property is part and parcel of "D" schedule property". 4. Delete the “B schedule" in para 11 of the plaint in line and inserted “D schedule" in the place of "B schedule". 5. Delete the contents after K. Subramanyam Reddy in Para 11 of the plaint in 14‘^ line. 6. Delete "excluding" and insert "Including" before "C Schedule" in para 12, 11‘^ line and also delete "B" schedule properties and Insert "D" schedule properties in the place in Para 12 of the plaint in 12^^ line. 7. Delete "C" schedule properties out of plaint "B" schedule properties and insert "D" schedule properties in that place in Para 13 of the plaint in 2"^ line and delete "out of the plaint B schedule properties in para 13, 3""' line". Delete "C schedule" properties in 4*" and 5”^ lines and insert "D schedule"properties in that place. 8. Delete "C schedule properties out of plaint B schedule properties" and insert "D schedule properties" in that place in Para 13 of the plaint in 7'^ and 8"" line. 9. In Para 15 of the plaint, in the particulars of the valuation in the 1^‘ line delete "B schedule" and insert "D Schedule" in the place of "B schedule". 10. In Para 15 of the plaint, in the particulars of the valuation delete "C schedule" and its market value and delete "3/4‘^ of the plaintiffs share" and insert of the plaintiffs share" in that place and also delete the value, by replacing Rs.5,76,750/-. 11. In Para 16 in prayer portion, add "preliminary" before decree and judgement, delete prayer "a" and insert the following in that place as prayer 'a". a. directing the defendants nos 1, 2 and 7 to effect division of plaint "D schedule properties" and to allot >2 share in favour of the plaintiffs, by metes and bounds, taking into consideration of good and bad qualities, from and out of "D schedule properties" and put them in separate possession, and on failure enabling the plaintiffs to have the same done through process of law". 12. Delete "B and C schedules" in the suit schedule columns of the Plaint and insert the following "B, C and D schedules" in the place of "B and C schedules". 4 B-SCHEDULE In Chittoor district, Balaji registration district, Chandragiri Sub- District, Chandragiri Mandal, 72 Nagapatia Village accounts, in Sv No DRY Extent 1. 1/1 Dry Ac. 06.00 cents (out of Ac.09.04 cents) C-SCHEDULE In Chittoor district, Balaji registration district, Chandragiri Sub District, Chandragiri Mandal, 12 Nagapatia Village accounts, in Existing 1/4’^ share Sold by 2"^ defendant of defendant to 2''%laintiff Sv No DRY Extent 1. 1/1 Dry Ac.O2.43V2 cents 2. 1/2 Dry Ac.01.55 2V cents 3. 3 Dry Ac.00.71 cents Ac.0.32 47 cents. Ac. 1.16 4V cents. Ac. 0.53 47 cents. D-SCHEDULE In Chittoor district, Balaji registration district, Chandragiri Sub District, Chandragiri Mandal, 72 Nagapatia Village accounts, in DRY SvNo Extent Ac.1.31 cents. Ac. 4.67 cents. Ac.2.13 cents. Total extent AC. 8.11 cents. 1. 1/1 Dry 2. 1/2 3. 3 Dry Dry It is the further case of the petitioners that the petitioner is aged man and the 2"^ petitioner studied up to fifth standard and at the time of filing the said suit, no proper instructions were given 3. to his counsel. Later they instructed the counsel to file two applications vide lA No.399 of 2016, seeking to implead their paternal aunt as 7*'^ defendant to the suit and another application lA No.400 of 2016, seeking to amend the plaint. The Trial Court allowed lA No.399 of 2016. However, insofar as lA No.400 of 2016 is concerned, the petitioners/plaintiffs was dismissed as not 5 pressed, as certain factual aspects including the sate transaction between the plaintiff and his sons, were not correctly mentioned. Thereafter, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the present application, seeking to amend the plaint by incorporating the proposed amendments. It is the further case of the petitioners/plaintiffs that, the joint family also got an extent of Ac.2.13 cents in Sy.No.3 of Nagapatia Village accounts and the same is in joint possession of the family which is shown as item No.3 in the proposed amendment of the D schedule properties. Further, it is averred that certain properties of the plaint B & C schedules were not correctly mentioned. It is the further case of the petitioners/plaintiffs that, for proper adjudication of the suit the proposed amendments are necessary to be carried. On the other hand, the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and 8 to 11 resisted the said application by filing a counter affidavit, denying the allegations made in support of the application. It is pleaded by the respondents that the trail has commenced in the suit, therefore the petitioners/plaintiffs cannot be permitted to file the present application seeking amendment of the plaint. It is also contended that the 1 4. defendant and 1®* plaintiff have relinquished their rights over the joint family property under two 6 registered deeds. Therefore, the application filed seeking amendment of prayer cannot be permitted, inasmuch as the registered relinquishment deeds are binding on them. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court dismissed the said application, by order dated 12.12.2017, on the ground that the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs is vague and devoid of merits and no reasons are forthcoming for not moving the application at the earliest point of time and the same is impugned in the present revision petition. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioners/plaintiffs have categorically stated that the proposed properties were not included at the time of filing the suit despite exercising due diligence. Further, it is also stated that the father of the 2"'^ petitioner is old aged person and the petitioner studied only up to 5^*^ standard, therefore, proper instructions could not be given to their counsel at the time of .filing the suit. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the proposed amendment is allowed. Further, it is the specific case of the petitioners/plaintiffs that the proposed properties are joint family properties and the same were not divided. Therefore, it is 5. \ necessary to include the said properties by way of the present 7 amendment. Though the respondents have stated in their counter that the 1"' plaintiff and 1"* defendant have relinquished their shares in the -joint family property through two registered conveyance deed, no documentary evidence have been filed in support of their contention. As already stated supra, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the present amendment application is allowed and the lis between the parties can be dissolved once for all. In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed and the petitioners are permitted to carry out the amendment sought for and liberty is granted to the respondents/defendants to file additional written statements if any. Accordingly the order of the Trial Court dated 12.12.2017, passed in IA.No.905 of 2017 in OS.No.797 of 2011, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. 6. 7. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. One CC to Sri Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to M/s Bharadwaj Associates, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Three CD Copies SAM vna HIGH COURT DATED:31/01/2025 ORDER CRP.No.17 of 2018 2 5 MAR 2025 'V*r> .X ■ . Current Section . ^ ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS