APHC010307822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1462/2025 Between: 1. BURRAMUKKU VENKATA SUBBAMMA, W/O (LATE) VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O 3-140, TADEPALLI TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. BURRAMUKKU ANJI REDDY,, S/O NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O TADEPALLI TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. BURRAMUKKU MANGAMMA, (DIED) 2. BURRAMUKKU SUMATHI LAKSHMI, W/O (LATE) SANKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O 12-466, TADEPALLI TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. BURRAMUKKU SIVA PRAKASH REDDY, S/O (LATE) SANKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O 12-466, TADEPALLI TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. P SINDHIYA, S/O YERRABABU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O TADEPALLI TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR 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 topleased to ALLOW the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the 2 RRR, J C.R.P.No.1462 of 2025 order dated 30.04.2025 passed in lA No.1462/2019 in OS NO.9/2016 on the file XI Additional District Jude, Tenali, in the interest of justice 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 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. J.V.PHANIDUTH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY 2. 3 RRR, J C.R.P.No.1462 of 2025 The Court made the following order: The deceased 1st respondent herein had moved O.S.No.9 of 2016, before the learned XI Additional District Judge, Tenali, against the petitioners herein, who are arrayed as defendants 1 & 3, as well as other defendants, for partition of the suit schedule property. The 1st respondent herein, during the pendency of the suit, passed away and the respondents 2 & 3 herein filed I.A.No.1462 of 2019 for bringing them on record as the Legal Representatives of the deceased 1st respondent. The claim of being the Legal Representatives of the deceased 1st respondent was made on the basis of a will and gift deeds that are said to have been executed by the 1st respondent, in favour of respondents 2 & 3, on 19.01.2016 and 17.06.2019. 2. The petitioners herein resisted this application, on the ground that the said deeds of will are disputed and that these persons cannot be brought on record as L.R’s of the deceased 1st respondent. The Trial Court, after considering the said Will as well as the deeds of gift that are said to have been executed by the 1st respondent, in favour of respondents 2 & 3, had allowed the application, by an order, dated 30.04.2025. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. Sri J.V. Phaniduth, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners had objected to the respondents 2 & 3 being 4 RRR, J C.R.P.No.1462 of 2025 impleaded, on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the deed of will and the deeds of gift are not genuine documents and do not confer any title in favour of respondents 2 & 3. Secondly, the deceased 1st respondent had other legal heirs, including her children and they need to be brought on record. It is contended that Order XXII Rule 3 stipulates that whenever a party to a suit passes away, his/her Legal Representatives would have to be brought on record. It is contended that in the present case, the application for bringing on record the respondents 2 & 3 would not be in accordance with Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC and the application should not have been allowed. 5. Sri A. Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 2 & 3 would submit that there is no duty cast on respondents 2 & 3 to implead other legal heirs, inasmuch as the respondents 2 & 3 have moved the application to make out their rights and it is always open to the petitioners to move necessary applications to implead the other legal heirs, if any exist, for the 1st respondent. 6. Sri J. V. Phaniduth, learned counsel for the petitioner would also draw the attention of this Court to the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 04.11.2022, in C.R.P.No.1037 of 2021. It is contended that another suit between the same parties came to be filed in O.S.No.174 of 2011 before the learned XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, for partition of the properties situated in Krishna District. An application had been made in this suit also to bring on record respondents 2 & 3 as the Legal Representatives of the 5 RRR, J C.R.P.No.1462 of 2025 1st respondent, without bringing on record the other children of the legal heirs of the deceased 1st respondent. The said application came to be allowed. A Civil Revision Petition was filed against the said order. This Revision Petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge, after observing that it is necessary to bring on record all the necessary heirs and Legal Representatives of the deceased 1st respondent, to be in compliance of the provisions of Order XXII Rule 3. The learned Single Judge, after making these observations, left it open to the petitioners therein to bring on record the L.R’s of the deceased 1st respondent. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court, following the said Judgment, dated 04.11.2022, disposes of the present Civil Revision Petition, while leaving it open to the petitioners to implead the remaining children or legal heirs of the deceased 1st respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 07.11.2025 MJA 6 RRR, J C.R.P.No.1462 of 2025 275 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1462/2025 07.11.2025 MJA