APHC010475232025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2277/2025 Between: 1. SRIRAM SRINIVASULU, S/O LATE MADHAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O H.NO.L/167-B, RTC BUS STAND BACK SIDE, MARKAPUR-523316, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P., ...PETITIONER AND 1. ARE LAKSHMAIAH, , S/O CHALAMAIAH, AGED 56 YEARS. DOOR NO. 7/662, DARSI RAMAKRISHNA HOSPITAL ROAD, MARKAPUR- 523316, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P., 2. RAM LAKSHMAMMA RAMA MAHALAKSHMAMMA, , W/O PEDDATHIRUPATHAIAH, AGED 73 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, SUNKESULA VILLAGE, PEDDARAVEEDU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P. 3. ALISETTISUBBALAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE BALAIAH, C/O KURICHEDUTIRUMALAIAH, AGED 68 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, BESIDE DOOR NO.1-173-3, 1STWARD, 9TH BLOCK, NEAR SMALL BRIDGE, MARKAPUR - 523316, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P., 4. ARE SUBBAMMA, DIED (D1). 5. ARE SATYANARAYANA, S/O HANUMANTHU, AGED 78 YEARS, HINDU, ADVOCATE(MAJOR RETIRED), RETIRED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(CT),H.NO.30 3, BLOCK-3, DIVYA SHAKTHI APARTMENTS, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD(D2) (DIED). 2 6. AVULAVENKATAIAH, , S/O PULLAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, KOTHAPALLI, H/O YERRAGONDAPALEM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 7. KOPPARTHIOBAIAH, (DIED) (D4). 8. KOPPARTHIANKAIAH, S/O CHINNAIAH, AGED 85 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, KOTHAPALLI, H/O YERRAGONDAPALEM, PRAKASAMDISSTRICT. 9. GURRAMGOVINDU, , S/O PEDDASESHAIAH, AGED 58 YEARS. RETIRED FOREST WATCHER, YERRAGONDAPALEM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 10. RUVVALAVENKATESWARLU, (DIED)(D7). 11. SHRAM MADHAVAIAH, (DIED) (DIO). 12. KOPPARTHIACHAMMA, (DIED) (DLL). 13. KOPPARTHIDIBBAIAH, , S/O OBAIAH, AGED 45 YEARS, KOTHAPALLI, H/O YERRAGONDAPALEM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT (LR OF D4 AND DLL). 14. RUVVALAJAGAN MOHAN PRASAD, , S/O LATE VENKATESWARLU, AGED 38 YEARS, CAR DRIVER, HINDU, YERRAGONDAPALEM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT (LR OF D7). 15. JALUKURIARUNA KUMARI, W/O LATE SOBHANBABU, AGED 36 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, C/O J. SOBHANBABU, POLICE CONSTABLE, DHONE P.S. KURNOOL DISTRICT (LR OF D7). 16. SHRAM MANGAMMA, W/O LATE MADHAVAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, HINDU, TRADER, POOLASUBBAIAH COLONY, 1ST WARD, MARKAPUR (LR OF DIO). 17. SHRAM KRISHNAIAH, S/O LATE MADHAVAIAH, AGED 45 YEARS, HINDU, TRADER, POOLASUBBAIAH COLONY, 1ST WARD, MARKAPUR(LR OF D 10). 18. ARE NAGENDRA PRASAD, , S/O LATE SATYANARAYANA, AGED 50 YEARS, H.NO.303, BLOCK NO.3, DIVYASAKTHI APARTMENTS, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD. (16TH RESPONDENT IS ADDED AS LR OF R2 AS PER ORDERS IN I.A.NO.915/2013, DATED 19-03-2015). (THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 TO 18 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES 3 IN THE PRESENT CIVIL REVISION PETITION) ...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 set aside the Docket order dated 17-07-2025 in I.A. No.961 of 2009 in O.S. No.73 of 1982 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Markapur, Prakasam District in respect pay the stamp duty for registration of item-7 of plaint schedule property in the interest of justice and to 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 pleased to grant stay of registration/sale including all further proceedings in I.A.No. 961 of 2009 in O.S.No.73 of 1982 dated 17-07-2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Markapur, Prakasam District in respect of Item -7 of plaint schedule property pending disposal of the main Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KASIM SAHEB Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PULIPATI RADHIKA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 550/2025 Between: 1. SRIRAM SRINIVASULU, S/O LATE MADHAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O H.NO.L/167-B, RTC BUS STAND BACK SIDE, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. ARE LAKSHMAIAH, S/O CHALAMAIAH, AGED 40 YEARS, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. RAM LAKSHMAMMA, W/O THIRUPATHAIAH AGED 57 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4 3. ALISETTISUBBALAKSHMAMMA, W/O BALAIAH, AGED52 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, 1ST WARD, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. ARE SUBBAMMA, DIED (D1). 5. ARE SATYANARAYANA, S/O HANUMANTHU, AGED 78 YEARS, HINDU, ADVOCATE(MAJOR RETIRED), RETIRED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(CT) H.NO.303, BLOCK-3, DIVYA SHAKTHI APARTMENTS, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD(D2) (DIED). 6. AVULAVENKATAIAH, S/O PULLAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, KOTHAPALLI, H/O YERRAGONDAPALEM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 7. KOPPARTHIOBAIAH, (DIED) (D4). 8. KOPPARTHIANKAIAH, S/O CHINNAIAH, AGED 85 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, KOTHAPALLI, H/O YERRAGONDAPALEM, PRAKASAMDISSTRICT. 9. GURRAMGOVINDU, S/O PEDDASESHAIAH, AGED 58 YEARS. RETIRED FORESTWATCHER, YERRAGONDAPALEM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 10. RUVVALAVENKATESWARLU, (DIED)(D7). 11. SRIRAM MADHAVAIAH, (DIED) (DIO). 12. KOPPARTHIACHAMMA, (DIED) (DLL). 13. KOPPARTHIDIBBAIAH, , S/O OBAIAH, AGED 45 YEARS, KOTHAPALLI, H/O YERRAGONDAPALEM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT (LR OF D4 AND DLL). 14. RUVVALAJAGAN MOHAN PRASAD, S/O LATE VENKATESWARLU, AGED 38YEARS, CAR DRIVER, HINDU, YERRAGONDAPALEM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT (LR OF D7). 15. JALUKURIARUNA KUMARI, W/O LATE SOBHANBABU, AGED 36 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, C/O J. SOBHANBABU, POLICE CONSTABLE, DHONE P.S. KURNOOL DISTRICT (LR OF D7). 16. SRIRAM MANGAMMA, W/O LATE MADHAVAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, HINDU, TRADER, POOLASUBBAIAH COLONY, 1ST WARD, 5 MARKAPUR (LR OF DIO). 17. SRIRAM KRISHNAIAH, S/O LATE MADHAVAIAH, AGED 45 YEARS, HINDU, TRADER, POOLASUBBAIAH COLONY, 1ST WARD, MARKAPUR(LR OF D 10). 18. ARE NAGENDRA PRASAD, S/O LATE SATYANARAYANA, AGED 50 YEARS, H.NO.303, BLOCK NO.3, DIVYASAKTHI APARTMENTS, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD. (16TH RESPONDENT IS ADDED AS LR OF R2 AS PER ORDERS IN I.A.NO.915/2013, DATED 19-03-2015) ...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 set aside the order in Final Decree Petition No.961 of 2009 in O.S. No.73 of 1982 dated 30-07-2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,Markapur, Prakasam District in respect of Item No.7 of plaint Scheduled property in the interest of justice and to 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 pleased to grant stay of Public auction dated 04-03- 2025 including all further proceedings in Final Decree Petition No. 961 of 2009 in O.S.No.73 of 1982 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Markapur, Prakasam District in respect of Item -7 of plaint schedule property pending disposal of the main Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KASIM SAHEB Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PULIPATI RADHIKA The Court made the following: 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS:2277 & 550/2025 COMMON ORDER:- Civil Revision Petition No.550 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Markapur, Prakasam District and allowed the final decree and directed the petitioners/respondent herein to take steps to sale the item No.7 of the plaint schedule property in public auction in final decree petition No.961 of 2009 in O.S.No.73/1982. 2. Civil Revision Petition No.2277 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the docket order dated 17.07.2025 in I.A.No.961 of 2009 in O.S.No.73 of 1982 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Markapur, Prakasam District and allowed memo filed by the petitioners therein and directed the plaintiff/1st petitioner to pay the stamp duty to register the share of plaintiff/1st petitioner and petitioner Nos.2 and 3/defendant Nos.8 & 9 on the name of the plaintiff/1st petitioner in item No.7 of the plaint schedule property in final decree petition No.961 of 2009 in O.S.No.73/1982 dated 30.07.2024. 3. The petitioner herein is respondent No.15 in the Final decree/legal heir of defendant No.10 and respondent No.1 herein is petitioner in final decree/plaintiff in suit, respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein are petitioners in final decree/defendant Nos.8 and 9 in the suit and all the other respondents are respondents in the final decree/defendants in the suit. 7 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.15 submits that the plaintiffs filed suit i.e., O.S.No.73 of 1982 seeking for partition. The said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs vide order dated 21.03.1988 with the following direction: “In the result, the suit is decreed by declaring that the plaintiff is having 5/8th share in items 1 to 5 and 7 of the plaint „A‟ Schedule properties and that he is entitled for the partition accordingly and for separate possession of the same after evicting the defendants 2 to 7 and 10. The actual partition by meats and bounds shall be worked out in final decree proceedings. The plaintiff is further entitled for future profits over his share in items 1 to 5 and 7 of the paint „A‟ schedule properties from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of his possession and defendants 2 to 7 and 10 are bound to account for resin profits and pay the same to the plaintiff. I further declare that defendants 8 and 9 are entitled to 1/8th share each in items 1 to 5 and 7 of the plaint „A‟ schedule properties. The defendants 2 to 7 and 10 are directed to pay costs in the suit to the plaintiff. The defendants 2 to 7 and 10 are further directed to pay the court fee payable in this suit to the State.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.15 submits that thereafter, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.8 and 9 filed a final decree petition under Order 20 Rule 18 of C.P.C. seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to divide item Nos.1 to 5 and 7 of the plaint schedule mentioned properties by metes and bounds according to terms of the 8 preliminary decree dated 21.03.1988. In the said petition a final decree dated 30.07.2024 was passed with the following direction: “In the result, the final decree is passed in respect of item Nos.1 to 3 and 5. Allot 1 to 5 items to petitioner No.1/plaintiff, item No.6 is allowed to petitioner No.2/D8 and 7th item is allotted to petitioner No.3/D9 shown in the sketches filed by the Advocate Commissioner in respect of items 1 to 3 and 5 of plaint “A” schedule properties, according to rights declared in the preliminary decree dated 21.03.1988. In respect of item No.4 of the schedule property no final decree is passed as Advocate Commissioner could not able to identify the said property even with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor. The petitioners are directed to take steps to sale the item No.7 of the plaint schedule property in public auction, which is not feasible for partition according to the report of Advocate Commissioner. The petitioners are directed to file market value certificate for sale of Item No.7 of petition schedule. For deposit of N.J. Stamps to engross the final decree for items 1 to 3 and 5 of petition schedule property. Call on 20.08.2024.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.15 submits that item No.7 of the schedule property was purchased by his father/defendant No.10 from one Ravvala Rajeswari through a registered sale deed. He further submits that the father of the petitioner also paid taxes for the said property in his name and also obtained electricity service connection in his name. Since then, the father of the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of 9 item No.7 of the schedule property. During the life time of petitioner’s father, he executed a registered will in favour of the petitioner on 17.05.2007 in respect of item No.7 of the schedule property. Since then, the petitioner and his family members are in exclusive possession of item No.7 of the schedule property. But, without considering the same the trial Court erroneously passed a final decree dated 30.07.2024. Thereafter, the trial Court also passed a docket order dated 17.07.2025, rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner herein/respondent No.15 and accepted the memo filed by the petitioners therein. Having no other option the petitioner herein/respondent No.15 preferred these revision petitions. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the plaintiff filed suit i.e., O.S.No.73 of 1982 seeking for partition and the same was decreed on 21.03.1988 in favour of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.8 and 9. In the said suit, defendant No.10/father of the petitioner herein was remained ex-parte and did not raise any plea in respect of claim of the plaintiff therein. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that challenging the preliminary decree dated 21.03.1988, Defendant No.2 preferred an appeal i.e., A.S.No.943 of 1988 before this Court and the said appeal was dismissed by confirming the judgment and preliminary decree of the trial Court. In the year 2007, defendant No.10 died and the petitioner herein/respondent No.15 was brought on record as legal heir of defendant No.10. Thereafter, a final decree dated 30.07.2024 and a docket order dated 17.07.2025 were passed. She further submits that if really, the father of the petitioner herein/defendant 10 No.10 purchased the item No.7 of the schedule property he would have contested the suit by producing the valid documents, but defendant No.10 kept quiet and remained ex-parte. Now, the petitioner/respondent No.15 has no right to agitate his claim over item No.7 of the schedule property. The petitioner herein/respondent No.15 preferred these revision petitions only with an intention to drag on the proceedings. She further submits that filing these revision petitions challenging the final decree and further proceedings is not maintainable. 9. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that if really defendant No.10 had valid document to prove that item No.7 of the schedule property belongs to him, he would have contested the suit, but defendant No.10 kept quiet and remained ex-parte. Even the appeal suit was also dismissed confirming the judgment passed in the suit. Further, as the defendant No.10 himself remained ex-parte, the legal heir of defendant No.10/the petitioner herein does not have any right in claiming rights over the item No.7 of the schedule property in the final decree. It is also observed that filing these revision petitions challenging the final decree and proceedings thereafter is not maintainable on two grounds. One is that, the preliminary decree attained its finality by way of judgment passed by this Court in the Appeal suit by confirming the judgment passed in the suit. Once, preliminary decree attained its finality, the petitioner herein/respondent No.15 does not have any right to claim rights over item No.7 of the schedule property at the 11 stage of final decree. So, the trial Court rightly held the final decree and does not warrants any interference of this Court. The second one is that, since, the final decree is an appealable order, filing revision petitions against it is not maintainable. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, if any. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 25.11.2025 TPS 12 270 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.2277 & 550 of 2025 25.11.2025 TPS