APHC010059432024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: 1. YERUKALI NAGAMMA (DIED), A 2. L. LOKESH,, S/O. L. ANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT, 35 YEARS, HINDU, R/O. H.NO,46/765, BUDHAWARA PETA, KURNOOL 1. SMT SHANTAMMA, W/O. LATE L. BOJJANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. HOUSE-WIFE, 2. L PEEDA SUNKANNA, S/O. LATE L.BOJJANNA, AGED 42 YEARS. 3. L SRIRAMULU, S/O. LATE L.BOJJANNA, AGED 40 YEARS. 4. L AYYANNA, S/O. LATE NARASAPPA, AGRICULTURIST, AGED 58 YEARS. 5. L ANJANEYULU, S/O. LATE NARASAPPA, AGRICULTURIST, AGED 58 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NOS.L TO 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF D.NO.46/765, BUDHAWARA PETA, KURNOOL. 6. S PEDDA BUSHAMMA, W/O. LATE S. GIDDAIAH, (DIED) 7. S PEDDA MADDAIAH, S/O. LATE S.GIDDAIAH, (DIED) 8. SMT I S KUMARI, , RESPONDENTS NOS. 6 TO 8 ARE RESIDENTS OF D.NO. 46/773, BUDHAWARA PETA, KURNOOL. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 245/2024 YERUKALI NAGAMMA (DIED), A L. LOKESH,, S/O. L. ANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT, 35 YEARS, HINDU, R/O. H.NO,46/765, BUDHAWARA PETA, KURNOOL ...PETITIONER(S) AND SMT SHANTAMMA, W/O. LATE L. BOJJANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 WIFE, L PEEDA SUNKANNA, S/O. LATE L.BOJJANNA, AGED 42 YEARS. L SRIRAMULU, S/O. LATE L.BOJJANNA, AGED 40 YEARS. L AYYANNA, S/O. LATE NARASAPPA, AGRICULTURIST, AGED 58 L ANJANEYULU, S/O. LATE NARASAPPA, AGRICULTURIST, AGED YEARS. RESPONDENTS NOS.L TO 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF D.NO.46/765, BUDHAWARA PETA, KURNOOL. S PEDDA BUSHAMMA, W/O. LATE S. GIDDAIAH, (DIED) S PEDDA MADDAIAH, S/O. LATE S.GIDDAIAH, (DIED) SMT I S KUMARI, , W/O. LATE S. PEDDA MADDAIAH, RESPONDENTS NOS. 6 TO 8 ARE RESIDENTS OF D.NO. 46/773, BUDHAWARA PETA, KURNOOL. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI L. LOKESH,, S/O. L. ANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT, 35 YEARS, HINDU, R/O. H.NO,46/765, BUDHAWARA PETA, KURNOOL ...PETITIONER(S) SMT SHANTAMMA, W/O. LATE L. BOJJANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 L PEEDA SUNKANNA, S/O. LATE L.BOJJANNA, AGED 42 YEARS. L SRIRAMULU, S/O. LATE L.BOJJANNA, AGED 40 YEARS. L AYYANNA, S/O. LATE NARASAPPA, AGRICULTURIST, AGED 58 L ANJANEYULU, S/O. LATE NARASAPPA, AGRICULTURIST, AGED YEARS. RESPONDENTS NOS.L TO 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF S PEDDA BUSHAMMA, W/O. LATE S. GIDDAIAH, (DIED) S PEDDA MADDAIAH, S/O. LATE S.GIDDAIAH, (DIED) W/O. LATE S. PEDDA MADDAIAH, RESPONDENTS NOS. 6 TO 8 ARE RESIDENTS OF D.NO. 46/773, 2 9. L MADDAMMA, W/O. LATE L. SUNKANNA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE. 10. L SHAKUNTHALAMMA, D/O. LATE L. SUNKANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, HINDU, 11. L VENKATESWARAMMA, . D/O. LATE L. SUNKANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HINDU, 12. L LAKSHMI DEVI, , D/O. LATE L. SUNKANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HINDU, RESPONDENT NOS. 9 TO 12 ARE RESIDENT OF H.NO.46/771, BUDHAWARPETA, KURNOOL. 13. G JANAKAMMA, W/O. LATE S. NAGANNA, AGED 55 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D.NO 46/723, BUDHAWARA PETA, KURNOOL. 14. YERUKALA LAKSHMI DEVI, D/O. LATE S. NAGANNA, AGED 39 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D. NO 46/723, BUDHAWARA PETA, KURNOOL. 15. G CHANDRA SEKHAR, S/O. LATE S. NAGANNA, AGED 37 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D.NO 46/723, BUDHAWARA PETA, KURNOOL. 16. S VENKATA SWAMY, S/O. LATE S.PEDDA PAPANNA, AGED 53 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D.NO 87/985, VIJAYAPURI POLONY, KURNOOL. 17. S SYAM SUDAR SHANI BABU, S/O. LATE S.PEDDA PAPANNA. AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D.NO 46/725, BUDHAWARA PETA, KURNOOL. 18. S VENKATA SWAMY, S/O. LATE S. NADIPI PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D.NO.46/721, BUDHAWARA PETA, KURNOOL. 19. S NAGAMMA, W/O. LATE S. NAGANNA, AGED 63 YEARS. 20. S VENKATESWARULU, S/O. LATE S. NAGANNA, AGED 47 YEARS. RESPONDENT NOS. 19 AND 20 ARE RESIDENTS OF D.NO.46/1- VBD-20-21, VASAVI GARDAN, BUDAWARA PETA, KURNOOL. 21. S ROSHANNA, S/O. LATE S.NADIPI PAPANNA. AGED 63 YEARS. RETD. GOVT. EMPLOYEE, 22. RESIDENT OF D.NO.46/729-1, BUDHAWARA PETA, KURNOOL. 3 22. S VENKATESWARAMMA, W/O. LATE S. MADDILETY, AGED 51 YEARS, R/O. D.N0.46/725-A, BUDHAWARA PETA, KURNOOL. 23. S RAMESH KUMAR, S/O. LATE S.MADDILETY, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O. D.N0.46/725-A, BUDHAWARAPETA, KURNOOL. 24. S EERAMMA, W/O. LATE S. VIJAYA BHASKAR, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O. D.N0.46/725-B, BUDHAWARA PETA, KURNOOL. 25. S SUDARSHAN KUMAR, S/O. LATE S.VIJAYA BHASKAR, AGED 38 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 46/725-8, BUDHAWARA PETA, KURNOOL. 26. S SHIVAKRISHNA, S/O. LATE S. VIJAYA BHASKAR, AGED 33 YEARS, R/O. D.N0.46/725-B, BUDHAWARA PETA, KURNOOL. 27. S VENKATA SWAMY, S/O. LATE CHINNA PAPANNA, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O. D.N0.46/725-B (UP-STAIRS), BUDHAWARA PETA, KURNOOL. 28. S KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O. LATE CHINNA PAPANNA, AGED 51 YEARS, R/O. D.N0.46/725-A BUDHAWARA PETA, KURNOOL. 29. S SRIRAMULU, S/O. LATE CHINNA PAPANNA, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O. D.N0.81/285-3-1/B, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, KURNOOL CITY. 30. B MAHESWARI, W/O. Y. MURALI PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 78/8-A-12-2-119-A4, VITAL NAGAR, KURNOOL. 31. DAMA MADHUKIRAN, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 78/8-A-12-2-119-A4, VITAL NAGAR, KURNOOL. ...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 to allow the present civil revision petition by setting aside the Order dated 11.01.2024 passed in I.A. No. 103 of 2023 in O.S. No. 110 of 2016 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Kurnool-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool and consequently permit the Petitioner to amend the Plaint and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 4 stay the further proceedings in O.S. No. 110 of 2016 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition 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 to extend the Interim orders passed earlier by this Hon'ble court in CRP No. 245 of 2024 until 19/02/2024 further orders in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. J JANAKIRAMI REDDY 2. MURALI LINCOLN 3. 5 The Court made the following order: Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 11.01.2024 passed in Interlocutory Application No.103 of 2023 in Original Suit No.110 of 2016 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioners herein are plaintiffs and respondents herein are defendants in O.S.110 of 2016 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool. 3. The petitioners herein/plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.110 of 2016 seeking partition and delivery of separate vacant possession of the plaintiffs’ 1/4th share in the half of the share of her father in the plaint schedule property with metes and bounds and for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of division the property. To the said suit, the respondents/defendants filed their written statement and contested the suit. Pursuant to the filing of written statement, the petitioners filed I.A.No.103 of 2023 praying the Court to amend the plaint by inserting the proposed amendment after paragraph No. 3 to be numbered as paragraph No.3A. In the said Interlocutory Application, the respondents/defendant Nos.8 to 12 and respondents Nos.13 to 31 filed their respective counters, contending that the 6 present petition was filed only to protract the proceedings and that it was filed after a lapse of seven years. They further contended that the proposed amendment completely deviates from the main pleadings of the plaint and the proposed amendment would change and deviate the nature of the main suit and it is devoid of merits and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. Upon hearing the parties, the Court below, vide order dated 11.01.2024, dismissed the said petition holding that there was no cause of action for the petitioner to file the present petition. The Court further held that the contention of the petitioner that he came to know about the partition deed dated 08.11.2004 only after defendant Nos.9 to 12 filed their written statement in April 2023 is not correct, as the original partition deed had already been filed by defendant No.7 way back in the year 2017. The suit was filed in the year 2016 and defendant No.7 filed his written statement in the year 2017 itself, thereby bringing to the notice of the petitioner the existence of the registered partition deed and accordingly concluded that the petition is misconceived. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 4. Heard Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.Murali Lincoln, learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 to 11 and Sri J.Janakirami Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.13 to 31. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision and contents of the affidavit filed in support of Interlocutory Application, contended that the petitioner herein filed the 7 interlocutory application to insert a particular fact which was very much required for better adjudication of the suit, as the respondents/defendant Nos.8 to 11 denied the execution of the partition deed. He further contended that the trial Court failed to see that the petitioner No.2/plaintiff No.2, who has been arrayed as plaintiff pursuant to the orders dated 18.08.2021 passed in Interlocutory Application No.27 of 2021, has preferred the impugned Interlocution Application only after realizing that one L.Sunkanna has played fraud on the other parties and became a party to the partition deed dated 08.11.2004, and erroneously dismissed the Application on the ground of delay. He further contended that if the said paragraph is inserted, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited1. 6. On the other hand, Sri Janakiramireddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.13 to 31 submitted that partition had already taken place and in view of the same, the suit is not maintainable. The Court below has rightly dismissed the application. The petitioner has not raised any valid grounds warranting interference of this Court and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 1 (2022) 8 SCR 1121 8 7. Sri Murali Lincoln, learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 to 11 denied the alleged partition said to have taken place, as contended by respondent Nos. 13 to 31. The petitioners have filed the Interlocutory Application after lapse of seven years. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 8. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. The point that arises for consideration in the present Civil Revision Petition is whether the Court below was justified in dismissing I.A. No.103 of 2023 seeking amendment of the plaint. 10. A perusal of the record would disclose that the suit is for partition and separate possession. The petitioners sought amendment of the plaint by inserting paragraph No.3A to bring on record certain facts relating to the partition deed dated 08.11.2004 and the alleged role of L.Sunkanna in the said transaction. According to the petitioners, the proposed amendment is necessary for effective adjudication of the real controversy between the parties. 11. It is well settled that in a suit for partition, the Court is required to adjudicate the rights of the parties comprehensively and determine their respective shares. The law relating to amendment of pleadings is liberal in nature, particularly when such amendment does not change the fundamental 9 character of the suit and is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. 12. It is relevant to refer the Judgment relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India (cited supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: (ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. (x) where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. . (xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The Court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or dives the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed.” In the present case, the proposed amendment does not alter the nature of the suit, which continues to be for partition and separate possession. It neither introduces a new cause of action nor changes the relief originally sought. The contention of the respondents that the application was filed after 10 lapse of seven years cannot, by itself, be a ground to reject the amendment, unless it is shown that such delay has caused irreparable loss or prejudice to them. No such specific prejudice has been shown or explained by the respondents/defendants. The judgment relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 13. The reasoning of the Court below that the petitioner was aware of the partition deed in the year 2017 itself may be a relevant circumstance, however, that by itself is not a sufficient ground to refuse amendment, when the amendment is sought for the purpose of bringing complete facts on record in a partition suit. The question whether the partition deed is valid, binding or vitiated by fraud is a matter to be adjudicated at the time of trial on the basis of evidence. At the stage of considering an application for amendment, the Court should not incline to go into the merits of the proposed pleadings. 14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and applying the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court to the present facts of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Revision Petition, as the proposed amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties and for effective adjudication of the suit. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order and decree dated 11.01.2024 passed in Interlocutory Application No.103 of 2023 in Original Suit No.110 of 2016 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool is set aside and Interlocutory 11 Application No.103 of 2023 is allowed. The petitioners are permitted to carry out the amendment as sought for. The respondents are at liberty to file additional written statement, if any, in view of the amendment. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 04.02.2026 MP 12 303 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:245 of 2024 Date: 04.02.2026 MP