1 APHC010633812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3356 OF 2025 Between: 1. MUDDAMSETTY BHAVISHYA, D/O. LATE MUDDAMSETTY NAGARAJA AGE 25 YEARS, OCCSTUDENT, 2. 2. MUDDAMSETTY SRIYA,, D/O. LATE MUDDAMSETTYNAGARAJA, AGE 22 YEARS, OCCSTUDENT, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT D.NO. 39/361-1-1. 3RD FLOOR, ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. MUDDAMSETTY VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O. LATE MUDDAMSETTY VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGE 69 YEARS, R/O. FLAT.NO. 302, THALLASAROJAMMARANGANNA NILAYAM, POLICE LINE, CEON PURAM, KADAPA CITY, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2 2. BUKKE RAJESARI, W/O.N.SIVA VIDYA SAGAR, AGE 46 YEARS,R/O. 302, THALLASAROJAMMARANGANNA NILAYAM, POLICE LINE, CEON PURAM, KADAPA CITY, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. MUDDAMSETTY SIVA PRASAD, S/O. LATE MUDDAMSETTY SUBBAIAH, AGE 41 YEARS,R/O. TIPPIREDDYPALLE VILLAGE, MYDUKUR MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. PRESENTLY AT KADAPA CENTRAL JAIL KADAPA DISTRICT (CT.NO.9672). 2 4. VALLERU SUBBAIAH NAIDU, S/O VALLERUSESHAIAH NAIDU, AGE 81 YEARS,R/O. FLAT NO. 401, 18-8-36/G, SS GARDENS APARTMENTS,MADURU NAGAR, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR,ANDHRA PRADESH. 5 5. AMASAANNAPURNAMMA, W/O. LATE AMASASRINIVASULU, AGE 79 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 2/64, TURUPUPALLI VILLAGE, PANAPAKAM POST, CHANDRAGIRI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6 6. NALLI SIVA VIDYA SAGAR, S/O. LATE NALLI TIRUPALAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. RESIDING AT D.NO.37/1208-1-1, CHINNA CHOWK, KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 7. GANDLA VENKATA SIVA PRASAD, S/O.GANDLACHENCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. RESIDING AT D.NO.36/256-55-4, CHINNA CHOWK, KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ... RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 8. 8. TULASI SWAPNA PRIYA, W/O TULASI VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. RESIDING AT D.NO.5-708, G.M.C. STREET, RAJAMPETA TOWN, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 9. 9. MUDDAMSETTY SUPRAJA RAMANAMMA, W/O LATE MUDDAMSETTYNAGARAJU, AGE 46 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 39/361-1- 1. 3RDFLOOR, VASUDEVAREDDY NAGAR, CHINNA CHOWK, KADAPA CITY, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, PRESENTLY R/O D.NO. 6/172-11-3, MULABATA STREET, PRODDATUR ROAD, MYDUKURTOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTIRCT, ANDHRA PRADESH. PRESENTLY ATSPECIAL WOMENS PRISON KADAPA CENTRAL JAIL KADAPA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY 3 The Court made the following ORDER : The present revision is filed aggrieved by the Order dated 04.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.37 of 2024 in O.S.No.14 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, insofar as dismissing the petition for addition of proposed item No.20 in the suit schedule property. 2. The Petitioners herein are the Plaintiffs 1 and 2, the respondent no.9 herein is plaintiff No.3, and the Respondents No.1 to 5, are the Defendants, in the suit. For sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as per their array in the suit. 3. The suit was filed against the respondents 1 to 5 herein/original defendants, seeking partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule properties, which contained 19 items. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.37 of 2024 seeking to permit them to implead respondents 6 to 8 herein as defendants 6 to 8 in the suit and to include the proposed item, as item No.20 in the plaint schedule. It is their case that father-in-law of the plaintiff No.3 used to manage the suit schedule properties and other properties, and inspite of best efforts, the plaintiff No.3 could not trace all the properties liable for partition, and they came to know about proposed Item No.20, which is also liable for partition being joint family property, recently. It is further stated that mother-in-law of the plaintiff No.3 i.e. Respondent No.3/Defendant No.1, colluding together with her daughter, fabricated another sale deed dated 08.03.2022 in favour of husband of Respondent No.2 during pendency of the suit, and in turn, the husband of the 4 Respondent No.2 created two documents dated 06.10.2023 in favour of proposed Respondents No.7 and 8, and the said item is also liable for partition. It is further stated that the Respondent No.7 is highhandedly proceeding with the construction in the proposed Item No.20 ignoring their legitimate claim. 4. During pendency of the said I.A., the plaintiffs not pressed the petition insofar as proposed respondent No.8 is concerned, and the petition was dismissed as not pressed insofar as proposed respondent No.8, on 01.08.2025. 5. The Trial Court after hearing both sides on merits, partly allowed the application, permitting the plaintiffs to implead the proposed respondents 6 and 7 as Defendants 6 and 7 in the suit, and dismissing the petition insofar as including the proposed Item No.20 in the plaint schedule. Aggrieved by the same, the instant Civil Revision Petition came to be filed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Respondents. Perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession in respect of 19 items, and during pendency of the suit, they came to know that the proposed Item No.20 was also liable for partition and that the proposed parties are the purchasers of the said property, and therefore, they filed the application to implead the proposed parties as party defendants and also to include proposed Item 5 No.20 in the suit as one of the properties, but the trial Court went on a wrong notion and rejected the claim to add the proposed Item No.20. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2, 6 and 7 would submit that the proposed Item No.20 is not the joint family property, and there is no share for the plaintiffs in the said item, as the same is absolutely belongs to respondent No.1, and that plaintiffs sought two prayers in one petition, and in view of the same, the trial Court rightly rejected the other relief, and there is no infirmity. 9. Perused the record. The suit was filed seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule properties. The plaint schedule properties contain 19 items. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.37 of 2024 seeking to permit them to implead respondents 6 to 8 herein as defendants 6 to 8 in the suit and to include the proposed item, as item No.20 in the plaint schedule. The said petition was partly allowed by the trial Court, permitting the plaintiffs to implead the proposed respondents 6 and 7 as Defendants 6 and 7 in the suit, while dismissing the petition insofar as including the proposed Item No.20 in the plaint schedule. The petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of the relief of inclusion of the proposed item No.20 in the plaint schedule. The ground assigned by the trial Court for rejection of the said relief is that filing of one application for two reliefs is not maintainable. The plaintiffs are expected to file separate applications viz. one for impleadment and another for amendment of plaint. The same has not been done. It is settled that all the 6 properties liable for partition have to be included in a suit for partition for effective adjudication of the suit. Therefore, the petitioners are permitted to file a separate application for amendment of plaint for inclusion of the proposed item No.20 in the plaint schedule properties, etc. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs of the C.R.P. Since the suit is of the year 2016, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Date: 18.03.2026 KK/DRK