APHC010645172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3411/2025 Between: 1. KOLLA BRAHMA REDDY,, S/O. SEETHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC RETD TEACHER, R/O. D. NO. 4-181, DACHEPALLI MANDAL AND VILLAGE PALNADU DISTRICT, A.R - 522414 ...PETITIONER AND 1. KOLA KOTAMMA DIED AS PER LRS, A 2. KOLA GOVINDA REDDY, S/O. SEETHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,R/O. D.NO. 4-180, REDIA BAZAAR, DACHEPALLI MANDAL AND VILLAGE PALNADU DISTRICT, A.P 3. GOGIREDDY VIMALA VEERAMMA, W/O. KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 1-3-161, KISSAN NAGAR, BHONGIRI, NALGONDA DISTRICT, TELANGANA - 508116. 4. DANDA ESWARAMMA, W/O. CHENNAKESAVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA. 5. KONDETI PERAMMA, W/O. RAMIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. ANAKAPALLI ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, A.P 6. TADIPARTHY LAKSHMI KOTAMMA, W/O. NARSIREDDY, R/O. REDLA BAZAAR, DACHEPALLI, PALNADU DISTRICT, A.P ...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 2 pleased to aggrieved by the Order dated 20-112025, passed in I.A. No. 459 of 2025 in O.S. No. 182 of 2013 In The Court Of The Hon'ble Civil Judge(Senior Division) Gurazala, the Petitioner herein beg to submit the present CRP on the following grounds, amongst others, within the time of limitation. 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 to stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 182 of 2013 In The Court Of The Hon’ble Civil Judge(Senior Division) Gurazala, pending disposal of the main C.R.P Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BHUVANAGIRI SUBRAMANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.182 of 2013, before the Civil Judge, (senior division), Gurazala for setting aside a deed of revocation, dated 09.05.2012, executed by the deceased 1st defendant. It is stated, in the plaint, that the deceased 1st defendant, who is the mother of the petitioner herein had executed a registered deed of Gift, dated 25.07.2008 gifting certain immovable properties to the petitioner. Thereafter, a deed of revocation, dated 09.05.2012 was executed, by his mother, and registered as document No.2241 of 2012 cancelling the gift deed, dated 25.07.2008 in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of the properties mentioned in the schedule to the suit. This unilateral cancellation was challenged in the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant passed away and her legal heirs, were brought on record as defendants 2 to 6. The trial court framed six issues and the matter came up for trial. At that stage, the petitioner moved I.A.No.459 of 2025, for reframing of issues. The petitioners sought deletion of issues 1 and 3 to 6 while requiring two fresh issues to be framed. The trial Court, by an order, dated 20.11.2025 had partly allowed the application, and framed two issues sought by the petitioner. However, the trial Court declined to delete issues 1 and 3 to 6. Aggrieved by the refusal of the trial Court to delete the issues 1 and 3 to 6, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present civil revision petition. 2. Sri B.Subramanya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the issues were wrongly framed and it changes the very nature of 4 the suit and consequently should have been deleted. He contends that the assertion of the 2nd defendant was that the property in question did not belong to the 1st defendant at all as her husband, who is the father of the 2nd defendant has executed an unregistered Will, dated 10.04.2003, bequeathing the suit schedule property on the 2nd defendant. The learned counsel would contend that the trial Court had framed the Issue No.3 in the following manner. 3) Whether the father of the plaintiff by name Seetha Reddy executed under registered will, dated 10.04.2023 in favour of 2nd defendant bequeathing the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is true and valid binding on the parties? 3. The learned counsel would contend that the written statement of the 2nd defendant only mentions the Will as an unregistered Will, and the same had been recorded in the order under revision. However, the trial Court, while framing the issues, recorded the Will as a registered Will. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that the suit is for a declaration that the 1st defendant could not have unilaterally revoked the gift deed made by her, by executing and registering a unilateral revocation. However, by virtue of the pleadings of the 2nd defendant and by virtue of issue No.3 framed by the trial Court, the very nature of the suit has now changed from that of the setting aside the revocation deed to that of a declaratory suit which would declare the title of the 2nd defendant. Learned counsel would submit that such an issue cannot be framed as the 2nd defendant is seeking declaration of his right and title over the property without instituting a suit and without paying any court fee. 5 5. As far as the first contention is concerned, the written statement of the 2nd defendant only mentions an unregistered Will. Consequently, issue No.3 framed by the trial court will be modified to the extent of describing the Will, dated 10.04.2023 as an unregistered Will. 6. Since the question of the effect of framing issue No.3 is concerned, the question of whether such a defence is permissible and whether such a defence can be accepted by the trial Court, without payment of court fee or by treating it as a counter-claim in the suit is a matter which can be decided by the trial Court itself. In the circumstances, this Court does not deem it appropriate to interfere with the matter, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise the aforesaid objections to at the time of consideration of issue No.3. 7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date: 05.12.2025 KA 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3411/2025 Date: 05.12.2025 KA