CRP/3446/2019 of VISHNUVAJJULA VENKATA SUBRAHMANYA SASTRY Vs CHANDURI MANIKYAMBA on 31 December 2019

ORDER:

This revision petition is arising out of the order dated 16.08.2019 in I.A.No.435 of 2019 in O.S.No.315 of 2018, on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem.

2. The revision petitioner is the 1[st] defendant in O.S.No. O.S.No.315 of 2018. The said suit was filed for declaration of title, possession and also for mesne profits by the 1[st] respondent against the defendants 1 to 6. In the said suit, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.435 of 2019 under Section 151 read with Order 15-A of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C’) for a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to deposit the admitted rents into the Court or to direct for the defence of the respondents 2 and 3.

3. The learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem has allowed the application, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to deposit the admitted rents into the Court on or before 10[th] of every succeeding month till disposal of the main suit from the date of the order.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner preferred this revision before this Court.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that the order passed by the trial Court under Order 15-A of C.P.C is not in accordance with law. The respondents 2 and 3 are not the tenants of the plaintiff and there is no relationship between them and that the Court cannot pass order directing them to deposit the rents into the Court as per the provisions of Order 15-A C.P.C.

7. The learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent submits that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and for mesne profits and the plaintiff is claiming rents from the respondents 2 and 3 and therefore, the trial Court has directed the respondents 2 and 3 to deposit the rents into the Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner/ 1[st]defendant is no way affected by the order passed by the trial Court directing to deposit the rents into the Court. The rents deposited into the Court would be realized by the parties who succeed in the suit.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are two Wills executed by Mahavadhi Surya Savithri. According to the plaintiff, she executed the Will dated 11.06.2007 in a sound and disposing state of mind and it was registered as document No.57 of 2007 in Book No.3 at SRO, Narasapuram with regard to her properties. There is a condition in the Will that the 1[st] defendant has to look after the said Savithri. As per the said Will, Mahavadhi Surya Savithri, she bequeathed a tiled house portion and site therein situated in Narasapuram of West Godavari District to the plaintiff with absolute rights, with regard to the site to an extent of Ac.2-32 cents of land in Akutigapadu Village, she bequeathed an extent of Ac.1-00 cents to the 1[st]defendant on a condition to look after her/ testatrix in her old age and render services and also perform obsequies to her. The remaining land i.e. an extent of Ac.1-32 cents is bequeathed to the plaintiff with absolute rights.

9. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff came to know that Mahavadhi Surya Savithri executed another Will dated 13.06.2007 which was registered at Narasapuram Village by undue influence and misrepresentation of the 1[st]defendant. However, these facts are denied by the respondents in the written statement. These facts are to be decided in the main suit. The trial Court taking into consideration the prima facie facts in the pleadings has come to a conclusion that the respondents 2 and 3 are tenants and therefore, they have to deposit the rents before the lower Court during pendency of the suit.

10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner seriously disputes jural relationship of respondents 2 and 3. The trial Court given a direction to them to deposit the rents as per the provisions under Order 15-A of C.P.C.

11. On consideration of submissions of both the learned counsel and material on record, it is obvious that the parties have to agitate their rights before the trial Court with regard to title and possession over the plaint schedule property. As far as the direction of the trial Court in respect of the respondents 2 and 3 depositing rents is concerned, the rents would be deposited into the Court and the 1[st] petitioner cannot have any grievance in depositing of the rents by the respondents 2 and 3. The rents any if deposited into the Court, would be taken by the party who succeeds in the suit. As far as the provision under Order 15-A of C.P.C is concerned, it is a question of fact and law that has to be decided by the trial Court as per its applicability. It is obvious that the plaintiff has sought for relief under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC and since there is a dispute between the parties with regard to title and ownership, there is nothing wrong in directing the respondents 2 and 3 to deposit the rents before the Court, so that the party who succeeds in the case may get those rents. Further, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case on merits expeditiously and both the parties are directed to cooperate for quick disposal of the case.

12. This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

______________________

G.SHYAM PRASAD,J

Date: 31.12.2019KA

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6613 OF 2014

DATED : 08-11-2019

ARR