Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5411 (AP)

KANCHUMARTHI RAMACHANDRA RAO v. KANCHUMARTHI RATNAM

CRP/347/2020 · 2025-07-16

T C D Sekhar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010044822020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 347/2020 Between: 1. KANCHUMARTHI RAMACHANDRA RAO, S/O BRAHMANADAM, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, DOOR NO.2-45, REKHAVANIPALEM, TUNI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. KANCHUMARTHI RATNAM, W/O BRAHMANADAM, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE, DOOR NO.2-198, REKHAVANIPALEM, TUNI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 2. BOTTA NAGESWARA RAO, , S/O LATE NOOKAYYA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC- CONTRACTOR, DOOR NO.2-66, NOOKALAMMAGUDI VEEDHI, REKHAVANIPALEM VILLAGE, TUNI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 3. BOTTA SESHAGIRI RAO, S/O LATE NOOKAYYA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, DOOR NO.2-66, NOOKALAMMAGUDI VEEDHI, REKHAVANIPALEM VILLAGE, TUNI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 2 TCDS,J C.R.P.No.347 of 2020 4. BOTTA SATYANARAYANA, S/O LATE NOOKAYYA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, DOOR NO.2-66, NOOKALAMMAGUDI VEEDHI, REKHAVANIPALEM VILLAGE, TUNI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 5. BOTTA SURYANARAYAN, S/O LATE NOOKAYYA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, DOOR NO.2-66, NOOKALAMMAGUDI VEEDHI, REKHAVANIPALEM VILLAGE, TUNI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 6. VELAGA SUBBA LAKSHMI, W/O RAJU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE, GIDICHERLA, YELAMANCHILI MANDAL, ANDHRA PRADESH 7. BOTTA RATNAM, W/O LATE SURAYYA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE, D.NO.52-10-36/A, JAGANNAIKPUR, KAKINADA 8. KARRI GAVVARRAJU, S/O LATE VEERAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC- MECHANIC, D.NO.52-10-36/A, JAGANNAIKPUR, KAKINADA 9. KARRI GANDHI, S/O LATE VEERAJU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC- DRIVER, D.NO.52-10-36/A, JAGANNAIKPUR, KAKINADA 10. KARRI VEERABABU, , S/O LATE VEERAJU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC- DRIVER, D.NO.59-8-81/30, JAGANNAIKPUR, KAKINADA 11. ALAJANGI PADMAVATHI, W/O VENKATARAMU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE, D.NO.59-8-81/30, JAGANNAIKPUR, KAKINADA 12. KARRI SRI LAKSHMI, W/O LATE SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE, D.NO.52-10/36/A, JAGANNAIKPUR, KAKINADA 3 TCDS,J C.R.P.No.347 of 2020 13. KARRI SIRISHA, D/O LATE SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE, D.NO.52-10/36/A, JAGANNAIKPUR, KAKINADA 14. KARRI VINEELA, D/O LATE SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCC- STUDENT, D.NO.52-10/36/A, JAGANNAIKPUR, KAKINADA 15. KARRI DURGA, W/O LATE KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE, D.NO.52-10/36/A, JAGANNAIKPUR, KAKINADA. ...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 C.R.P. by setting aside the order dt.14-11-2019 passed in CMA No.01 of 2019 on the file of Learned XII Addl. District Judge, Pithapuram consequently set aside the orders dt.07-02-2019 in I.A.No.1522 of 2018 in O.S.No.135/2018 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 pleased to grant Ad-Interim Injunction in my favour and against the Respondents/ Defendants their henchmen and hirelings from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property till disposal of the suit in 0.S.No.84/2010 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, East Godavari District at Pithapuram till disposal of the present C.R.P. and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K S MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. T V JAGGI REDDY 4 TCDS,J C.R.P.No.347 of 2020 The Court made the following order: It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cause in the revision petition does not survive. 2. The said submission is placed on record. 3. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. 4. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Date: 17.07.2025 KGR