APHC010341012019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3448/2019 Between: 1. B REVATHI, W/O. K SRIHAR REDDY, AGED 28 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, 2. A INDRANI, W/O. VEERAMNIKANTHAN, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, TEACHER, 3. A VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY, S/O. A MUNI BHUPATHI REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, CULTIVATION ALL ARE R/O. PACHIKAPALAM VILLAGE VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. B KAMALAMMA, W/O. KRISHNA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 2. B VANAJAKSHI, D/O. KRISHNA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 3. B NAGARAJA, S/O. KRISHNA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 4. B DESAMMA, D/O. KRISHNA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 5. B LATITHAMMA, D/O. KRISHNA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 ARE R/O. PACHIKAPATLAM VILLAGE, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. 6. B BANDI NALLAPPA REDDY, S/O. BAKKI REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 7. B SIDDA REDDY, S/O. BODI REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 8. K KESAVULU REDDY, , S/O. VENKATA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 9. B LOKANADA REDDY, S/O. RAMIREDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 10. G GUNNA REDDY, S/O. NALLAPPA REDDY, YAMANNA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 11. S RAMI REDDY, S/O. KARREPPA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 12. B GOVINDA REDDY, S/O. RAMIREDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 13. B CHENGA REDDY, S/O. RAMIREDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 2 14. B IRAGAMMA, W/O. BANDI RAMIREDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, LRESPONDENTS 6 TO 14 ARE R/O. PACHIKPALAM VILLAGE, POST, VEDURU KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. 15. B MURUGESA REDDY, S/O. KRISHNA REDDY, AGED 42. YEARS, 0CC CULTIVATION R/O. PACHIKPALAM VILLAGE A POST, VEDURU KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. 16. MINOR B DORA BABU, ,AGED 14 YEARS, REP BY FATHER B MURUGESA REDDY, R/O. PACHIKPALAM VILLAGE ET POST, VEDURU KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. 17. K KANTHAMMA, W/O. NADAMUNIREDDY, AGED 56 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. KOTHA SANAMBATTA VILLAGE AND POST, CHANDRAGIRI MANDAL, SPSR NETLORE DIST. 18. K KALVATHI, W/O. K DEVARAJULU REDDY, AGED 46 YEARS, CULTIVATION R/O. THELLAGUNDLA PALLE, KOTHAINDLU VILLAGE, DEVARAGUDIPALLI POST, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. 19. K DHANANJAYULU REDDY, S/O. K KESAVULU REDDY, AGED 44 YEARS, CULTIVATION R/O. PACHIKAPALLAM VILLAGE AND POST, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. 20. K MUNIRATHNAM REDDY, S/O. K XESAVULU REDDY, AGED 40 YEARS, CULTIVATION R/O. KOTHASANAMBATLA VILLAGE, POST CHANDRAGIRI MANDAL CHITTOOR DIST 21. K KARTHAVEERA ARJUNA REDDY, S/O. K KESAVULU REDDY, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. ERRAMARAJUPALLI VILLAGE, POST KARVETINAGARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST. 22. E VARALAKSHMI, W/O. BHUVANESWAR REDDY, AGED 35 YEARS, CULTIVATION R/O. NALLEPALLE VILLAGE AND POST, GANGADARA NETLORE MANDT, CHITTOOR DIST. 23. B REVATHI, W/O. K SRIHARI AGED 32 YEARS, RAMAKRISHNA SCHOOL PACHIKAPALLAM VILLAGE AND POST, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAT, CHITTOOR DIST. 24. V REKHA RANI, W/O. Y ESWAR REDDY, AGED 29 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O. PACHIKAPALLAM VILLAGE, VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST.RESPONDENTS LRS OF RESPONDENT NO. 18 25. B LAKSHMAMMA, W/O. LATE B NALTAPPA REDDY, 26. B CHANDRASEKHARA REDDY, S/O. LATE B NATLAPPA REDDY, 27. B HEMASEKHARA REDDY, S/O. LATE B NATLAPPA REDDY, 28. B JAYASEKHARA REDDY, S/O. LATE B NATLAPPA REDDY, LRS OF RESPONDENT NO. 6 AND RESPONDENTS 25 TO 28 ARE RIO. PACHIKAPATAM VILLAGE VEDURUKUPPAM MANDAT, CHITTOOR DIST. ...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 call for the records relating to order and decree Dt. 3 12.7.2019 in IA No.283/2014 in IA No.331/1992 in OS No.123/1978 dt 12.7.2019 and examined the legality, proprietary and correctness of the same and consequently set aside the same by allowing the revision in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 direct the respondents No. 15 to 28 not to create any 3rd party rights for the land in Sy No.221 /4 for an extent of Ac.0.22 cents situated at Pachikapallayam Village of Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor Dist. Pending disposal of the revision in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T C KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K KOUTILYA 2. T V JAGGI REDDY The Court made the following: 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3448 OF 2019 ORDER:- 1. The petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition, aggrieved by the order passed in IA No. 283 of 2014 in IA No. 331 of 1992 in OS No. 123 of 1978. The petitioners filed IA.No.283 of 2014 seeking to reopen the final decree dated 01.12.2004 in IA.No.331 of 1992 for working out equities with respect to the second item of the suit property. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, dismissed the interlocutory application. 2. Sri.K.S.Gopala Krishna, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are third parties to the OS.No.123 of 1978. It is submitted that Ac.0.44 cents in Sy.No.221/4 in Pachikapallm Village, Venduru Kuppam Mandal was originally joint family property of Pulluru Venkata Reddy, also known as Bandipulluru Venkata Reddy and his son Pulluru Krishna Reddy. A suit for partition was filed by the family members of Pulluru Venkata Reddy against Bandi Nallappa and others. 3. It is submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the Bandi Pulluru Krishna Reddy sold away the western half of the land admeasuring Ac.0.22 cents of land out of Ac.0.44 cents in favour of the 1st petitioner’s paternal grandfather Annareddy Venkata Reddy vide a registered sale deed dated 06.10.1980. The 1st petitioner is informed 5 that OS.No.123 of 1978 was dismissed, and the plaintiff subsequently filed AS.No.8 of 1986 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Tirupati. During the pendency of the said appeal, some of the appellants passed away, and their legal heirs have been brought on record. 4. The appeal suit was allowed on 24.01.1992, by passing a preliminary decree and the claim of the plaintiff in the suit for half share in the suit schedule properties was allowed. SA.No.82 of 1992 and SA.No.360 of 1992 were filed aggrieved by the order passed in AS.No.8 of 1986. Both appeals were dismissed on 07.02.2000. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners came to know about the final decree passed in IA.No.331 of 1992. The petitioners came to know that the eastern half of Item No.2 of the schedule property i.e., Ac. 0.22 cents of land out of Ac. 0.44 cents of land has been allotted to the legal representatives of Bandi Pulluru Krishna Reddy, and there is no mention about the western half of the Ac.0.22 cents in the final decree. The western half was sold during the lifetime of Bandi Pulluru Krishna Reddy in favour of the paternal grandfather of the 1st petitioner, Annareddy Venkata Reddy, vide a registered sale deed. A rice mill was constructed over the said property by the paternal grandfather of the 1st petitioner. 6. The learned senior counsel submits that when the legal heirs of Bandi Pulluru Krishna Reddy had knowledge of the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners' paternal grandfather on 06.10.1980, they could 6 not have claimed the eastern half of the land admeasuring Ac.0.44 cents as unalienated and obtained its allotment. It is submitted that ideally, the western portion of Item No.2 of the schedule property, admeasuring Ac.0.22 cents out of the total area admeasuring Ac.0.44 cents, ought to have been allotted to the legal heirs of the Bandi Pulluru Krishna Reddy. As the western portion was already sold off, the same would have been ratified by the legal heirs of Bandi Pulluru Krishna Reddy. 7. It is submitted that fraud was played on the Court and by suppression of the sale deed in favour of the paternal grandfather of the 1st petitioner, the legal heirs of Bandi Pulluru Krishna Reddy got allotted Ac.0.22 cents of land i.e., the eastern half of the Ac.0.44 cents of land and the said allotment has wrongfully secured double advantage to the legal heirs of Bandi Pulluru Krishna Reddy. 8. It is submitted that the brothers of the petitioners had filed IA.No.268 of 2012 in OEP.No.14 of 2009 without arraying the petitioners as parties with a view to knock away the Ac.0.22 cents of land. At that juncture, the petitioners filed IA.No.283 of 2014 seeking to reopen the final decree passed on 01.12.2014 in IA.No.331 of 1992. It is submitted that the learned Judge has dismissed the interlocutory application without passing a reasonable order. It is submitted that when fraud is alleged in obtaining the decree, the final decree passed can be reopened. 7 9. The learned senior counsel for petitioners places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S.P.Chengal Varaya Naidu (Dead) by LRs Vs. Jagannath (Dead) By LRs. and others1. It is submitted that, the petitioners are only seeking to reopen the final decree passed in order to decide the claim of the petitioners on merits, more particularly considering the registered sale deed which was executed in favour of the petitioners’ paternal grandfather. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioners are aware of all the disputes and that they were constantly keeping back of the Court proceedings. However, the petitioners were avoiding the Court proceedings for the reasons better known to them. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the petitioners at para No.9 of the affidavit filed in IA.No.283 of 2014 admit that they had knowledge of IA.No.268 of 2012 in OEP.No.14 of 2009 and that for the sake of maintaining IA.No.283 of 2014 have vaguely stated that they came to know about the said proceedings only during first week of November, 2013. It is submitted that an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, submitted the report, and thereafter the final decree was passed. It is submitted that the parties remained exparte during the final decree proceedings. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioners have exhibited undue delay in coming up with the application 1 (1994) 1 SCC 8 seeking reopen of the final decree, and the delay remains unexplained even till date. 13. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners in reply submits that the claim of the petitioners ought to be considered on merits, and fraud played on the Court can be rectified at any point of time and in the interest of justice, the fraud committed on the Court is deemed to be rectified for the disposal of the dispute in a fair and acceptable manner. 14. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 15. This Court vide order dated 27.06.2023 directed the parties not to create third-party interest over the property pending the Civil Revision Petition. The order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur is cryptic and devoid of reasons. The only reason mentioned in the order dated 12.07.2019 is that the final decree was passed in IA.No.331 of 1992 by the Court through the process of law, and the share was decided and allotted. As such, the same cannot be reopened. On these grounds, the learned Judge found it not necessary to look into the contentions raised in the affidavit. Accordingly, dismissed the interlocutory application. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.P.Chengal Varaya Naidu (Dead) by LRs Vs. Jagannath (Dead) By LRs. and others (supra1) dealt with a similar issue where the parties to the suit failed to disclose the deed of release relinquishing the rights over the property and obtained a 9 preliminary decree. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when fraud is alleged, the principle of finality of litigation cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. 17. The petitioners are admittedly not parties to the final decree proceedings. By the date of passing of the final decree and during the pendency of OS.No.123 of 1978, a registered sale deed was executed by Bandi Pulluru Krishna Reddy on 06.10.1980 in favour of the petitioners' paternal grandfather. This fact and the said sale deed was not considered while passing the final decree. This Court is not determining whether the sale deed was deliberately ignored for playing fraud on the Court or was a bona fide mistake on the part of the litigants. The final decree ought to have been passed duly taking into consideration the schedule property of the registered sale deed dated 06.10.1980. 18. On these considerations, the Civil Revision Petition deserves to be allowed. The order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge in IA.No.283 of 2014 is hereby set aside and the final decree dated 01.12.2004 passed in IA.No.331 of 1998 deserves to be reopened. Also considering the submissions that the issue is unresolved for several decades, the learned Judge shall endeavour to dispose off the final decree proceedings by taking into consideration the contention of the 10 petitioners and others within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. 19. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed off. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 30.01.2026 KGM 11 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3448 OF 2019 Dated 30.01.2026 KGM