APHC010069792026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 591/2026 Between: 1. AKA DANDAIAH PANTULU CHARITIES, GUNTUR, REP., BY ITS WORKING TRUSTEE, KONDURI NANDA KISHORE, S/O. KRISHNA RAO. AGED 43 YEARS, HINDU, ADVOCATE WORKING TRUSTEE OF PLAINTIFF TRUST, DR.5-48-13/2, 4/13 BRODIEPET, GUNTUR - 522002, R/O.9TH LANE, A.T.AGRAHARAM, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER AND 1. AKA SUBRAHMANYAM, S/O. RAMA RAO, AGED 56 YEARS, HINDU, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. SF-3, SATYA SAI HOMES, 6/15 BRODIPET, GUNTUR. 2. VUDRAGIRI KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O. KUPPUSWAMY NAIDU, AGED 40 YEARS, HINDU, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. DR.NO. 1-3-41, BHAVA NAGAR COLONY, PONNUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. GURRAPUSALA RAMU, S/O. BAPAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS, HINDU, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. DR.NO. 1-3-41/2, BHAVA NAGAR COLONY, PONNUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. GOPISETTY BHASKARA RAO, S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED 68 YEARS, HINDU, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. DR.NO. 1-3-17, BHAVA NAGAR COLONY, PONNUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. SMT SHAIK APRAVUN, W/O. ABDUL SALAM, AGED 63 YEARS, MUSLIM, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. DR.NO.1-2-13/1, BHAVA NAGAR COLONY, PONNUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2 RRR,J C.R.P.No.591 of 2026 ...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 toThe Petitioners Court aggrieved against the decree and order dt. 16.12.2025 in the file of the Civil Judge (Senior to frame additional issue, for the Honble I.A.525/2025 in O.S.195/2018 on Division), Bapatla allowing petition amongst other grounds that would be urged at the time of following hearing IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 stay of all further proceedings in O.S. 195/2018 on the file of the Civil Judge(Senior Division), Bapatia, pending disposal of main revision petition; and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K H V SIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. B V ANJANEYULU 3 RRR,J C.R.P.No.591 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.195 of 2018, before the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bapatla, seeking a declaration that, he is the owner of the property described in the schedule to the plaint, and for a consequential injunction, restraining the respondents herein from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the said property. 2. In the course of the suit, the respondents herein had moved I.A.No.525 of 2025, for framing an additional issue, relating to the validity of the will, on the basis of which the petitioner – trust, has claimed right or title over the property. This application was allowed by the Trial Court, on 16.12.2025. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner – trust, has approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. Heard Sri P. Raj Sekhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K. H. V. Siva Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. V. Anjaneyulu, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 5. Sri P. Raj Sekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that, the said issue does not arise in as much as the earlier proceedings between the mother of the 1st respondent and the petitioner – trust, in O.S.No.469 of 2014, on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, was on the question of existence of the trust and there is no requirement for any further proof to be produced, in this regard. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also contend that, 4 RRR,J C.R.P.No.591 of 2026 these issues were raised, before the Trial Court and were not answered by the Trial Court in as much as the Trial Court merely allowed the application, on the ground that, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner – trust. 6. Sri B. V. Anjaneyulu, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, would contend that, the 1st respondent had specifically raised the question of the existence and the validity of the will, under which the petitioner – trust, is said to have been formed and in such circumstances, there is every need to frame an additional issue, on the said question. 7. A perusal of the order, dated 16.12.2025, would show that, the Trial Court, had not adverted to these questions nor have these contentions been answered. 8. In these circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the Trial Court, passed in I.A.No.525 of 2025, in O.S.No.195 of 2018, dated 16.12.2025 and the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court, for a decision on merits, after considering and answering the rival submissions, made on both sides. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date:27.02.2026 KPV 5 RRR,J C.R.P.No.591 of 2026 242 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:591 of 2026 27.02.2026 KPV