CRP/2142/2024 of B SANTHOSH Vs K CHENGAMMA NAIDU on 31 December 2024

1. K. Chengamma Naidu, (Died)

2. K. Jayaprada, W/o. Late K.Chengama Naidu, Aged about 59 years, OccHouse Wife, R/o. D.No.2-621/1, Santhinagar Colony, PhaseI, Chittoor.House Wife, R/o. D.No.2-621/1, Santhinagar Colony, PhaseI, Chittoor.

3. K.R. Padmavathy, D/o. Late K.Chengama Naidu, Aged about 39 years,R/o. D.No.2-621/1, Santhinagar Colony, Phase I, Chittoor.R/o. D.No.2-621/1, Santhinagar Colony, Phase I, Chittoor.

4. K.R.V. Prasad, S/o. Late K. Chengama Naidu, Aged[about][ 35]years.Rep by its Power of Attorney Holder and brother K.R.Sudhir, S/o. LateRep by its Power of Attorney Holder and brother K.R.Sudhir, S/o. Late

K. Chengama Naidu, Occ Employee, R/o. D.No.2-621/1, SanthinagarColony, Phase I, Chittoor.Colony, Phase I, Chittoor.

5. K.R.Sudhir, S/o. Late K.Chengama Naidu, Aged about 51 years, OccCultivation, R/o. D.No.2-621/1, Santhinagar Colony, PhaseI, Chittoor.Cultivation, R/o. D.No.2-621/1, Santhinagar Colony, PhaseI, Chittoor.

6. Smt. K. Jagadamba, (Died).

7. B.S.Balakrishna Naidu, (Died)

8. Smt. L. Anasuya, W/o. Late L. Ethirajulu Naidu, Aged about 72 years,R/o. Mutharapalli Village, Thavanampalli Mandal, Chittoor[District.]R/o. Mutharapalli Village, Thavanampalli Mandal, Chittoor[District.]

9. B.Kasthuri, W/o.B. Balakrishna Naidu, Aged about 69 years,R/o.Mutharapalli Village, Thavanampalli Mandal, Chittoor[District.]Mutharapalli Village, Thavanampalli Mandal, Chittoor[District.]10.V.Naga Bushana, W/o. V.Chandrasekhar Naidu, Aged about[58]years,R/o.FlatNo.3,3'^'^floor.CrossBhuvaneshwariNagar,Bangalore.years,R/o.FlatNo.3,3'^'^floor.CrossBhuvaneshwariNagar,Bangalore.

11.. B.Ramani, W/o. B.R.Mohan Kumar, Aged about 50 years,R/o.. B.Ramani, W/o. B.R.Mohan Kumar, Aged about 50 years,R/o.D.No. 17-54, Marvel Infinity, 33th Cross, 1th Main BanasankariII Stage,Bangalore.Bangalore.

12. B.Sandip, S/o. B.S. Balakrishnan Naidu, Aged about 46 years,Occ Business, R/o. Mutharapalle Village, Patnam Post, ThavanampalleMandal, Chittoor District.Occ Business, R/o. Mutharapalle Village, Patnam Post, ThavanampalleMandal, Chittoor District.

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS No.

1 to 6 & 8

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 262/2002 on the file of the Si mAdditionalCivil Judge (Senior Division) Chittoor, pending disposal of theabove CRP.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VV N NARASIMHAM

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.9 to 12: SRI P SAI[SURYA][ TEJA]

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI A VENKATA DURGA[RAO]

Counsel for the Respondent No.8: SRI MANNAVA JAGAN[MOHAN][ RAO]

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4;

The Court made the followingORDER:

* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2142 of 2024

Between:

B SANTHOSH, S/0. B.S. BALAKRISHNAN NAIDU,AGED ABOUT[48] YEARS,OCCCULTIVATIONR/0.SETTER!VILLAGE,THUMBAKUPPAMPOST,BANGARUPALYAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

.... Petitioner

Versus

$ K CHENGAMMA NAIDU, DIED AND OTHERS.

Respondents

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED 31.12.2024.

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2142 of 2024

%DATE 31.12.2024

Between:

B SANTHOSH, S/0. B.S. BALAKRISHNAN NAIDU,AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,OCCCULTIVATION,R/0.SETTERIVILLAGE,THUMBAKUPPAMPOST,BANGARUPALYAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.Petitioner

Versus

$ K CHENGAMMA NAIDU, DIED AND OTHERS.

....Respondents

! Counsel for the petitionerV V N NARASIMHAM

^ Counsel for the respondents:

1 .VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA

2. JAGAN MOHAN RAO MANNAVA

3.

4. P SAI SURYATEJA

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1995 0 Supreme(SC) 619

APHC010410432024IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA

PRADESHAT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2142/2024

Between:

1. B SANTHOSH, S/0. B.S. BALAKRISHNAN NAIDU, AGED ABOUT[48]YEARS,OCCCULTIVATIONR/0.SETTERIVILLAGE,THUMBAKUPPAM POST,BANGARUPALYAM MANDAL, CHITTOORDISTRICT.YEARS,OCCCULTIVATIONR/0.SETTERIVILLAGE,THUMBAKUPPAM POST,BANGARUPALYAM MANDAL, CHITTOORDISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. K CHENGAMMA NAIDU, DIED

2. K JAYAPRADA, W/0. LATE K,CHENGAMA NAIDU AGED ABOUT[59]YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE,R/0. D.NO.2-621/1, SANTHINAGARCOLONY, PHASEI, CHITTOOR.YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE,R/0. D.NO.2-621/1, SANTHINAGARCOLONY, PHASEI, CHITTOOR.

3. K R PADMAVATHY,,D/0. LATE K.CHENGAMA NAIDU,AGEDABOUT 39 YEARS,R/0. D.NO.2-621/1, SANTHINAGAR COLONY,PHASEI, CHITTOOR.ABOUT 39 YEARS,R/0. D.NO.2-621/1, SANTHINAGAR COLONY,PHASEI, CHITTOOR.

4. K R V PRASAD,, S/0. LATE K. CHENGAMA NAIDU, AGED[ABOUT]35 YEARS.REP BYITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANDBROTHERK.R.SUDHIR, S/0. LATE K. CHENGAMA NAIDU,OCCEMPLOYEE,R/0. D.NO.2-621/1, SANTHINAGAR COLONY,PHASEI, CHITTOOR.35 YEARS.REP BYITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANDBROTHERK.R.SUDHIR, S/0. LATE K. CHENGAMA NAIDU,OCCEMPLOYEE,R/0. D.NO.2-621/1, SANTHINAGAR COLONY,PHASEI, CHITTOOR.

5. K R SUDHIR, S/0. LATE K.CHENGAMA NAIDU,AGED ABOUT[51]YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION,R/0.D.NO.2-621/1, SANTHINAGARCOLONY, PHASEI, CHITTOOR.YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION,R/0.D.NO.2-621/1, SANTHINAGARCOLONY, PHASEI, CHITTOOR.

6. SMT K JAGADAMBA, (DIED).

7. B S BALAKRISHNA NAIDU, (DIED)

8. SMTL ANASUYA, W/0.LATEL. ETHIRAJULUNAIDU,AGEDABOUT72YEARSR/0.MUTHARAPALLIVILLAGE,THAVANAMPALLI MANUAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.ABOUT72YEARSR/0.MUTHARAPALLIVILLAGE,THAVANAMPALLI MANUAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

9. B KASTHURI, W/0.B. BALAKRISHNA NAIDU,AGED ABOUT 69YEARS,R/0.MUTHARAPALLIVILLAGETHAVANAMPALLIMANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.10.YEARS,R/0.MUTHARAPALLIVILLAGETHAVANAMPALLIMANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.10.

10. V NAGA BUSHANA, W/0. V.CHANDRASEKHARNAIDU,AGEDABOUT58YEARS,R/0.FLATNO.3,3RDFLOOR. CROSSBHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE.ABOUT58YEARS,R/0.FLATNO.3,3RDFLOOR. CROSSBHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE.

11. B RAMANI,, W/0. B.R.MOHAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,R/0. D.NO. 17-54,MARVEL INFINITY, 33TH CROSS,1TH[MAIN]BANASANKARIII STAGE, BANGALORE.R/0. D.NO. 17-54,MARVEL INFINITY, 33TH CROSS,1TH[MAIN]BANASANKARIII STAGE, BANGALORE.

12. B SANDIP,, S/0. B.S. BALAKRISHNAN NAIDU,AGED ABOUT[46]YEARS,OCCBUSINESSR/0.MUTHARAPALLEVILLAGE,PATNAMPOSTTHAVANAMPALLEMANDAL,CHITTOORDISTRICT.YEARS,OCCBUSINESSR/0.MUTHARAPALLEVILLAGE,PATNAMPOSTTHAVANAMPALLEMANDAL,CHITTOORDISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying[that][ in][ the]circumstancesstatedinthe groundsfiledherein,theHighCourt may bepleased topleasedto allow the present C.R.P. by setting[aside][ the][ Order][ and]DecreepassedI.A.NO.281OF 2024IN O.S.NO. 262 OF 2002dated08/08/2024 The Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Chittoorand to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2024

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 pleasedpleased to stay allfurther proceedings in O.S.No.[262/2002][ on][ the][ file][ of][ the]AdditionalCivil Judge (Senior Division) Chittoor,pending disposal of theabove CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. VVN NARASIMHAM

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA

2. JAGAN MOHAN RAO MAN NAVA

3.

4. PSAI SURYATEJA

The Court made the following Order:

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner[and][ the][ learned]counsel for the respondent Nos.9 to 12.

2. This revisionis filed against the order passed in[I.A.No.281]of 2024inO.S.No.262of 2002 onthefile of AdditionalCivil Judge (Senior Division),Chittoor,dated08.08.2024inpartlyallowingthepetitionpermittingthepetitioner/?'^ defendant to participate in the suit proceedings at the stage ofarguments only.O.S.No.262of 2002 onthefile of AdditionalCivil Judge (Senior Division),Chittoor,dated08.08.2024inpartlyallowingthepetitionpermittingthepetitioner/?'^ defendant to participate in the suit proceedings at the stage ofarguments only.

3. The petitioner is the T"' defendant in the suit and the respondent Nos.9to 12 are the defendant Nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 in the suit.to 12 are the defendant Nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 in the suit.

4. ThelearnedSeniorCounselforthepetitionersubmitsthatthepetitioner/?'^' defendant is only aggrieved of the order passed by the Courtbelow only to the extent of permitting the petitioner to participate in the suitproceedings at the stage of arguments only. Having permitted to participate inthe suit proceedings, thetrial Court ought to have allowed the petitioner/?thdefendanttoavailallthe consequences insteadoflimitingtheroleofparticipation from the arguments stage only. When the petitioner/?"^ defendantwas allowed to file the additional written statement in the suit proceedings, thepetitioner/?'^' defendant is only aggrieved of the order passed by the Courtbelow only to the extent of permitting the petitioner to participate in the suitproceedings at the stage of arguments only. Having permitted to participate inthe suit proceedings, thetrial Court ought to have allowed the petitioner/?thdefendanttoavailallthe consequences insteadoflimitingtheroleofparticipation from the arguments stage only. When the petitioner/?"^ defendantwas allowed to file the additional written statement in the suit proceedings, the

said defendant must be in a position to participate in the suit proceedings fromthe stage of inception of the additional written statement. When the defendantNo.8 was allowed to submit his written statement and when therewasnorestrictionto participate from the stage of arguments only,inserting suchrestrictionin the order dated 08.08.2024 for this petitioner/?'^ defendantisdiscriminatory as the petitioner would be deprived of seeking framingofadditional issuesif any and participationin thetrialtocross examinethewitnesses in terms of the additional averments made in the written statement.Since the plaint was amended, as the defendant Nos.1 and 2 died and theirlegal representatives were brought onrecordpermittingtofileadditionalwritten statement, it is just and necessary to allow the subsequent defendantswho came on record to participate in the trial,if necessary, by reopening thesame,but nouseful purpose would be servedif theyarepermittedtoparticipateat the stageof argumentsonlywithoutsubjectingthemforexamination and cross examination in the course of trial.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for[the][ above][ said]respondents/defendants submits that the 2'"'' defendant whois the father ofthe petitioner/?"' defendant already filed written statement on 0?.06.2003 itselfand the petitioner has come on record as one of the legal representatives ofthe deceased 2^" defendant.Evenif heis allowed tofile additional writtenstatement he need not be permitted to seek for reopeningof thetrial andrestricting himto participate at the stage of arguments only,no prejudicewould be caused as the necessary evidence was alreadyletinfortherespondents/defendants submits that the 2'"'' defendant whois the father ofthe petitioner/?"' defendant already filed written statement on 0?.06.2003 itselfand the petitioner has come on record as one of the legal representatives ofthe deceased 2^" defendant.Evenif heis allowed tofile additional writtenstatement he need not be permitted to seek for reopeningof thetrial andrestricting himto participate at the stage of arguments only,no prejudicewould be caused as the necessary evidence was alreadyletinforthe defendants.Merelybecausethereareintersedisputesamongstthedefendants, that cannot be a ground for reopening of[the][ trial][ at][ the][ instance]of one of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant whoinitiallycontested thesuitbyfiling the written statement.Earlier theplaintiff filedC.R.P.No.2324 of 2014 against the order of recalling[of][ DW.1][ for][ further][ cross]examination which was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court[on 08.09.2023.][ When]the 2"^^ respondent died, defendant Nos.6 to 8 are brought on record as thelegal representatives of the 2^'^ defendant.In this case, the 3’’^ defendant alsofiled written statement on 04.04.2024.

He refers to the Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. at this stage[which][ reads as]

under:

Procedurein caseof deathof oneof several defendants orof soledefendant.

(1) Where one of two or more defendants dies and the right to sue does notsurviveagainstthesurvivingdefendantor defendantsalone,or asoledefendant or sole surviving defendant dies and the right to sue survives, theCourt,onanapplicationmadeinthatbehalf,shallcausethelegalrepresentativeof the deceased defendantto be madeaparty andshallproceed with the suit.

(2) Any person so made a party may make any defence appropriate to hischaracter as legal representative of the deceased defendant.

He also refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme[Court][ of][ India][ in]

Vidyawativ. Man Mohan and others^in Special LeavePetition(Civil)No.9356 of 1995 dated 01.05.1995 for the said provision of Order 22 Rule 4(2)

C.P.C., wherein it is observed in para Nos.3 & 6 as[under:]

(3) Whether the petitioner has independent right, title and interest dehors theclaim of the 1®' defendant is a matter to be gone into at a later proceedings.Itis true that when the petitioner was impleaded as a party defendant, all rightunder Order 22 Rule 4(2) and defences available to the deceased defendantbecome available to her.In addition,if the petitioner had any independentright, title or interest in the property then she had to get herself impleaded inthe suit a party defendantin which she could set up her own independentright, title and interest to resist the claim made by the plaintiff or challenge thedecree that may be passed in the suit.

(6) It is open to the petitioner to implead herself in her independent capacityunder Order1 Rule 10 or retain the right to file independent suit asserting herownright. We do notfind any error of jurisdictionor materialirregularitycommittedin the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court below warranting ourinterference. The S.L.P. is accordingly dismissed.

He further submits that as per the plaint of the said suit, the cause ofaction for filing the suit arose on 25.12.2000, the date of execution of the Willby Balia Raghava Naiduin favour of the1®’ defendant, on 31.01.2001, thedate on which the said Balia Raghava Naidu died and[on][ several][ dates][ and][ in]the recent past when the defendants claim that they are having right in theplaint schedule properties before both the plaintiffs[and][ defendants][ and][ the]relief sought in the said suit against the defendants[is] that to declare that theplaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties and forgrant of consequential relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs with respectto the plaint schedule properties in which originally[the][ 2"^][ defendant][ in][ his]lifetime filed the written statement stating that there[are][ no][ merits]in the suitandtheunregisteredWilldated25.12.2000isa forgedandfabricateddocument and as such the document cannot carry any evidentiary value to ft’

prove the claim of the petitioners against the defendantsin respect of theplaint schedule properties.

6. Inviewoftheabovesaidfactsandcircumstancesanduponconsideration of the rival submissions made,it is[to][ be][ seen][ that][ the][ above]I.A.No.281of 2024 in O.S.No.262 of 2002 on the file of Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Chittoor was filed by the petitioner/?*^ defendant stating thatthe filing of written statement by him is very much necessary in the interest ofjustice as the plaintiffs filed thesuit basing uponthe false and fabricateddocumentsasheavystakesareinvolvedintheabovesaidsuit,thepetitioner/?’*^defendant maybepermittedtofiletheadditionalwrittenstatement apart from giving necessary reason for not filing the same on theearlieroccasion.Inthe written statementof the?"^ defendant/petitionerherein,it was averred that he is adopting the written statement filed by the 2nddefendant in respect of all the material facts mentioned in para Nos.6 to 10 ofthe plaint.

In view of the amended plaint, this defendant is filing[additional][ written]statement stating that during the pendency of the above[said]suit, the1Stdefendant died intestate and she showed the entire property in favour of the2"'*defendant.Entireplaintiff’spropertiesincludingtheplaintscheduleproperties are in joint possession of the family members[of][ the][ 2^^][ defendant.]The other legal heirs of the 2nd defendant are creating fabricated, collusivedocuments to defeat the interest of this ?”’ defendant which cannot be lookedinto as they are not binding upon this defendant.He[also][ submitted][ that][ he]

filed the suit against the defendant Nos.2,6 & 8 for partition of the entire jointfamily properties including the plaint schedule properties in O.S.No.8 of 2023on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chittoor which is pendingfor disposal.The primary contention of this defendant/petitione[r]is that theplaintiff in collusion with the other defendants is trying to lay foundation withthe false statements.It is to be seen that while adopting the written statementof the deceased 2"^ defendant certain additional averments were made in thewritten statement of the 7’^ defendant by way of defense appropriate to hischaracter as legal representative of the deceased defendant.

Asperthesaidprovision whenthelegalrepresentativesofthedeceased defendant makes an application, the Court can make him a party toproceed with the suit and any person who is made as a party can make hisdefense appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceaseddefendant.Hence, the above said provision enables the legal representativeto come on record along with the written statement by putting forth his defensefor participation in the suit proceedings.

7. Even as per the above said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court whenthe petitioner was impleaded as a party-defendant,all right under Order 22Rule 4(2) CPC and the defences available to the deceased defendant becomeavailabletohim.Itisnot the caseof thepetitioner hereinthat heisimpleadingin the suit as a party defendant to set uphis own independentright, title and interest to resist the claim of the plaintiff dehors the defensealready taken by the deceased 2""^ defendant in his written statement.Thatthe petitioner was impleaded as a party-defendant,all right under Order 22Rule 4(2) CPC and the defences available to the deceased defendant becomeavailabletohim.Itisnot the caseof thepetitioner hereinthat heisimpleadingin the suit as a party defendant to set uphis own independentright, title and interest to resist the claim of the plaintiff dehors the defensealready taken by the deceased 2""^ defendant in his written statement.That (‘Intv.

apart Order 22 Rule 4 CPC enables the legal representative[to][ proceed][ with]the suit and as such imposing the restriction by the[trial][ Court][ against][ the]petitioner toparticipateat the stageof arguments[only][ vide][ order][ dated]08.08.2024is unreasonable, unjust and contrary to[law.]All the more, thecontesting respondents herein did not challenge the[order][ passed][ by][ the][ trial]Court dated 08.08.2024 allowing the petitioner tofile[the][ additional][ written]statement as the 7*^ defendant in the suit.

Since the suit is of the year 2002, both the parties[shall][ cooperate][ with]the trial Court for early disposal of the same, as[expeditiously][ as][ possible,]preferably within a period of six (6) months from the[date][ of][ receipt][ of][ this]order.

8. For theforegoingreasons,thisCivilRevisionPetitionisallowedremoving the restriction on the petitioner “to participate[in][ the][ suit][ proceedings]at the stage of arguments only”. There shall be no[order][ as][ to][ costs.]removing the restriction on the petitioner “to participate[in][ the][ suit][ proceedings]at the stage of arguments only”. There shall be no[order][ as][ to][ costs.]

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any,[shall][ stand][ closed.]SDI- M.SRINIVASASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

One Fair Copy to the HON’BLE SRI. JUSTICE B. KRISHNA[MOHAN](for his Lordship’s kind perusal)

To,

1. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Chittoor.

2. One CC to SRI. VV N NARASIMHAM Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to SRI.P. SAI SURYA TEJA, Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC to SRI.A. VENKATA DURGA RAO. Advocate [OPUC]

5. One CC to SRI. MANNAVA JAGAN MOHAN RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

6.9L.R. Copies.

7. The Under Secretary, Union of India. Ministry of Law,JusticeandCompany Affairs, New DelhiCompany Affairs, New Delhi

8. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’AssociationLibrary, High Court Buildings, Amaravarthi.Library, High Court Buildings, Amaravarthi.

9. THREE CD COPIES

Chp

TAC

▼

HIGH COURT

DATED:31/12/2024

ORDER

CRP.No.2142 of 2024

i17 JAN MSS^ . Current Section. ^

ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION