1 APHC010055152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3239] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 311/2025 Between: Lankapalli Chilakamma and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Bantu Prakasa Rao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. C VENKAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 12.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.304 of 2022 in O.S. No.31 of 2020 on the file of Additional Civil Judge‟s Court (senior Division), Eluru (for short “the trial Court”). 2. The present impugned I.A.No.304 of 2022 was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein under Order XXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC 2 to add 2nd petitioner as 2nd plaintiff as LR of deceased 1st plaintiff and permit him to carryout consequential amendment of plaint. 3. The 1st petitioner herein is the plaintiff-deceased and the 2nd petitioner herein has filed the impugned I.A. and the respondents herein are the defendants before the trial Court. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. 5. The facts of the case are that one Smt L. Chilakamma-deceased plaintiff is his adoptive mother and owner in occupation and actual possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. It is stated that the deceased 1st plaintiff has filed suit in O.S No.31 of 2020 before the trial Court for cancellation of sale deed dated 14.5.2019 , which was registered as document No.4848/2019 obtained by the defendants fradulently from her and award costs of the suit. During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff died on 10.07.2021 leaving behind him as legal heir to her and there are no legal heirs to the deceased and the Tahsildar also issued family members certificate. His deceased mother executed her last Will and testament on 23.12.2018 bequeathed the schedule property to him. Hence, the 2nd petitioner prayed this Court to allow this petition. 6. The respondent No.1 filed counter before the trial Court and denied the averments in the petition. The respondents 2 and 3 adopted the counter filed by 1st respondent. The respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner/ 3 proposed party is not at all adopted son of Lankapalli chilakamma and she never executed any WILL in favour of the 2nd petitioner herein much less the alleged WILL dated 23.12.2018. The respondent No.1 further submitted that late Lankapalli Chilakamma is the elder sister of 1st respondent and she died on 10.7.2021. It is further submitted that one Lankapali Sreeramulu is the husband of Lankapalli Chilakamma/plaintiff and they were blessed with one daughter by name Joyce Lilly Vinoda Rani and she is the only daughter to Lankapalli Chilakamma and Lankapalli Sreeramulu and the said Lankapalli Chilakamma's husband and her daughter predeceased to her and the said Lankapalli Chilakamma/plaintiff during her life time never adopted anybody. It is further stated in the counter that the petitioner/proposed plaintiff is the son of the elder sister of Lankapalli Chilakamma and the respondent, son of late Natha Sarasamma and late Natha Gagaiah and the suit documents filed in the above suit clearly proves the same. It is further stated that the suit in OS No.31/2020 was also not filed by the late Lankapalli Chilakamma and this false suit got filed by the petitioner/proposed plaintiff by playing fraud. It is also stated that the alleged family members certificate might have been created by the petitioner by influencing the authorities. Therefore, this respondent prayed this Court to dismiss the petition. 7. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both the learned counsels had dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner had not adduced any evidence or placed any material before the Court to substantiate that he was adopted by late Smt. L. Chilakamma and that late 4 Smt. L. Chilakamma had bequeathed her property by way of a Will to him. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd petitioner herein approached this Court by way of this Civil Revision Petition. 8. Heard Sri C. Venkaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the respondents, who appeared virtually through Video conferencing. 9. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the plaint contended that the 2nd petitioner herein was the adopted son of the deceased-plaintiff i..e, late Smt L. Chilakamma. He submits that the order of the trial Court is contrary to law and facts, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, hence unsustainable under law. He submits that the trial Court ought to have allowed L.R petition in the impugned Interlocutory Application as prayed for, instead of dismissing the same in spite of remand orders of this Hon‟ble Court dated 26.7.2023 in CRP No.1115 of 2023 because the trial Court acted with material irregularity in exercising its jurisdiction vested in it by not passing reasoned order again in the remanded matter. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court erred in observing in para 13 that the order that it is not proper to rely on the family member certificate submitted by the 2nd petitioner, ignoring the fact that even without family members certificate the deceased 1st plaintiff herself admitted in the plaint that herself and her husband Sriramulu adopted one N. Rangarao i.e., 2nd petitioner herein in his childhood, which is also mentioned by the Hon‟ble Court in para 10 of the order itself. He submits that the trial Court ought to 5 have allowed the L.R petition basing on the material placed by the 2nd petitioner coupled with admission made by deceased original plaintiff in the plaint that he is her adopted son, instead of dismissing the same without valid reasons. He further submits that the court below ought to have seen that it is a suit covering the immovable property and if the 2nd petitioner is not given an opportunity of proving his case by adding himself as 2nd plaintiff a great prejudice and irreparable loss will be caused and it is against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, learned counsel prayed this Court to allow the present civil revision petition. 10. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the suit itself has been created and filed by the 2nd petitioner in the name of one late Smt L.Chilakamma and consequently the averments in the plaint cannot be taken to be true. He submits that the trial Court rightly did not rely upon the said pleadings and rightly dismissed the application. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the same. 11. Perused the material on record. 12. On a perusal of the material this Court observed that, earlier the petitioner has filed the present I.A.No.304 of 2022 before the trial Court seeking to add the petitioner as 2nd plaintiff under Order XXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC and the same was dismissed by the trial Court. aggrieved by the same, the 1st petitioner has filed CRP No.1115 of 2023 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 26.07.2023 has allowed the said CRP while setting aside the impugned order dated 31.12.2022 passed in 6 IA No.304 of 2022 in O.S No.31 of 2020 and remanded back the matter for appropriate decision. In pursuance of the same, the matter was remanded back to the trial Court. 13. As seen from the impugned order, it is observed that, in the plaint the deceased plaintiff submitted that she herself and her husband Sriramulu adopted one N.Ranga Rao in his childhood and treated him as foster son. The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to produce any relevant material to show that the petitioner/plaintiff is the adoptive son of deceased plaintiff. Further observed that, this Court directed the petitioner to place the material before the Court to ascertain whether the plaintiff had adopted the petitioner or not. Moreover, the petitioner failed to produce any material which was placed before the revenue authorities for obtaining family member‟s certificate and on perusal of the family member‟s certificate, it discloses that the certificate was obtained based on the affidavit produced by the applicant. Therefore, the trial Court has not relied upon by the family members certificate. Insofar as Xerox copy of WILL submitted by the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner did not chose to mark any documents and he did not choose to mark the family members certificate or did not choose to file the original copy of the WILL dated 23.12.2018. 14. This Court further observed that, the respondents got marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 certified copies of Sale deed and Registered Gift Deeds, which were executed by deceased plaintiff Lankapalli Chilakamma, wherein it disclose the relationship between the petitioner and late deceased plaintiff 7 mentioned as the deceased plaintiff is the material aunt of the petitioner and on perusing the family members certificate produced by the petitioner, the age of the petitioner mentioned as „63‟ years. Further, in Ex.R4, it was not mentioned that the petitioner is adopted son of the deceased plaintiff. So, as the petitioner failed to produce any material before the court to show that he is the adopted son of the deceased plaintiff and also failed to produce any material in compliance of Section 7 and 11 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956, the trial Court has dismissed the application. 15. In view of the above, this Court feels that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application, warrants no inference. Finding no merit in the instant civil revision petition and devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ____________________________ DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO Date: -02-2025 Gvl 8 THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO C.R.P.No.311 of 2025 Date: 21 .02.2025 Gvl