CRP/2683/2025 of MUSUNURI RAMADEVI Vs MUSUNURI ANANTHA PADMANABHA RAO on 5 March 2026

1. MUSUNURI RAMADEVI, W/O.ANANTHA PADMANABHA RAO AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, HINDU, R/O.PYRAPARRU, AMARTHALURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. MUSUNURI ANANTHA PADMANABHA RAO, S/O.RAMA KOTAIAH, AGED ABOUT

YEARS, HINDU, R/O.PYRAPARRU AMARTHALURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT PETITIONER/1ST DEFENDANTS

2. MANDURI BHUSHANAM, (DIED)

3. RAYAPUDI ELESU, S/O.KOTAIAH,

AGED

YEARS, R/O.ANGALAKUDURU, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

4. MUSUNURI VASUNDHARA, D/O.RAMAKOTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O.ANGAIAKUDURU, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

5. RAYAPUDI PREMAVATHI, W/O.SUNDARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, HINDU, R/O ANGALAKUDURU,

TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. (RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE NOT NECESSARY IN THE REVISION PETITION)

...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 above named petitioner beg to present this Memorandum Petition to this Honble Court against order and decree 2008 in O.S.No. 119 of 1989 dt.01.04.2024 (Senior Division), Tenali, Guntur District, grounds. of Civil Revision passed in I.A.No.106 of on the file of Additional Civil Judge for the following among other 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 pleased to condone the delay of 443 days in filing the CRP and pass such order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case IA NO: 2 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in I.A.No. 106/2008 in O.S.No.119/1989 dt.01.04.2024 including E.P.No.5/2025 on the file of court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Tenali, pending disposal of revision petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. PETA GNANA TEJA

The Court made the following Order:

The petitioners herein, had filed O.S.No.119 of 1989, before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali, for partition of certain properties against the respondents herein. Initially a preliminary decree, had been passed, which was subjected to an Appeal before this Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. After the dismissal of the Appeal, the matter was taken up again by the Trial Court, for final decree proceedings and a decree, dated 01.04.2024, came to be passed, in I.A.No.106 of 2008, in O.S.No.119 of 1989.

2. This final decree is assailed in the present Civil Revision Petition. The main contention raised by Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, the final decree proceedings, had been passed, on the basis of an alleged concession given by the petitioners. The learned counsel has taken the Court through the memo of acceptance, dated 23.12.2021, filed by the petitioners and the relevant portion in the final decree, giving the details of acceptance that is said to have been given in the memo. The learned counsel would point out that, what was accepted in the memo and what was recorded by the Trial Court, to have been accepted in the Memo, are at variance with each other. The learned counsel would contend that, on such basis, the final decree requires to be set aside.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, would raise a preliminary objection that, a final decree cannot be challenged, by way of a Revision Petition and the only remedy would be to avail an Appeal against the final decree proceedings.

4. Section 96 of C.P.C. stipulates that, where any parties, are aggrieved from an original decree, they can challenge the same by filing an Appeal against such a decree. On the other hand, Section 115 of C.P.C. stipulates that, a Revision would be maintainable against an order, against which no Appeal is maintainable. As Section 96 provides for such an Appeal, it would not be appropriate for this Court to consider the issue raised by the learned counsel in a Revision Petition.

5. In these circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail of their remedies in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

Date:06.03.2026 KPV

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2683 of 2025

06.03.2026

KPV