Ganipineni Padmavathi, vs Ganipinen Hanumantha Rao Died
2022 Latest Caselaw 983 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

            CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1034 of 2021

ORDER:-

       This revision petition is filed against the order of the

Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge,

Prakasam District, Ongole, dated 21.06.2021, in I.A.No.486 of

2017 in O.S.No.75 of 2009.


       2.      The deceased plaintiff had filed the above suit

against his wife, who is arrayed as defendant No.1, his mother

who is arrayed as defendant No.2 and a tenant in the suit

schedule property, who is arrayed as defendant No.3. The

claim of the deceased plaintiff was that his father had

executed a Will in his favour on 06.02.1994 bequeathing the

suit property to him and passed away on 05.08.1994.

However, the defendant No.1, in the suit had obtained a

registered Will dated 02.04.1992, by way of fraud and

misrepresentation due to which, the plaintiff right and title of

the suit schedule property was being disputed. In the

circumstances, the deceased plaintiff sought a declaration that

he was the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and

for   consequential    permanent   injunction,   restraining   the

defendants 1 and 3 from interfering with possession of the

deceased plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

       3.      During the pendency of the suit, the deceased

plaintiff passed away on 21.11.2013.     Upon his demise, the
                                 2
                                                         RRR,J
                                              CRP.No.1034 of 2021



respondents 2 and 3 herein filed I.A.No.486 of 2017 claiming

that the respondent No.2 was the wife of the deceased plaintiff

and respondent No.3 was the son of the deceased plaintiff and

that they would be entitled to be impleaded as legal

representatives of the deceased plaintiff. The respondents 2

and 3 also relied upon a Will that is said to have been

executed by the deceased plaintiff in their favour on

21.06.2013. This application was dismissed by the trial Court

on 19.12.2017. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal,

respondents 2 and 3 moved this Court, by way of

C.R.P.No.373 of 2018 which was disposed of on 01.11.2019.

A learned Single Judge of this Court, in the said order dated

01.11.2019, had held that it would not be necessary to refer to

the status of the respondents 2 and 3 regarding their

relationship with the deceased plaintiff as it was a question of

disputed fact among the parties. However, the learned Single

Judge took the view that since the claim of the respondents 2

and 3 is based on a Will dated 21.06.2013 said to have been

executed by the deceased plaintiff, it would be appropriate to

remand the matter back to the trial Court to decide the nature

of the Will and to give an opportunity to the respondents 2 and

3 to prove the Will dated 21.06.2013 to be the last Will and

testament of the deceased plaintiff.

4. After the remand of the matter, the trial Court

permitted the parties to adduce evidence and the petitioner

herein examined R.Ws.1 to 4 and marked exhibits B.1 to B.33.

The respondents 2 and 3 examined P.W.1 to 4 and marked

RRR,J CRP.No.1034 of 2021

Exhibits P.1 to P.21. Both sides by way of arguments and

written submissions have raised various contentions before

the trial Court. After hearing both sides, the trial Court

allowed the application by an order dated 21.06.2021.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has

approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision

Petition.

6. The petitioner had contended, before the trial

Court that the petitioner was the sole wedded wife of the

deceased/plaintiff and that the respondent No.2 was not a

legally wedded wife of the deceased/plaintiff. The petitioner

herein claimed to have married the deceased/plaintiff on

17.06.1987 while the respondent No.2 claimed to have

married the deceased/plaintiff on 24.08.1986. The petitioner

contended that the respondent No.2 never married the

deceased plaintiff. She also contended that the 2nd respondent

was initially married to one Ravipati Hanumantha Rao and

subsequently one Madasu Chandra Sekhar on 06.12.1992.

As the respondent No.2 had not demonstrated whether

Ravipati Hanumantha Rao was alive or not by the time of the

alleged marriage on 24.08.1986, it must be held that the

marriage even if such a marriage has been performed, was

illegal. The petitioner also disputed the execution of the Will

dated 21.06.2013 on the ground that the said Will is supposed

to have been executed in Global Hospital while the documents

produced by the respondents 2 and 3 show that the deceased

RRR,J CRP.No.1034 of 2021

plaintiff had been admitted to Global Hospital much later and

so the deceased plaintiff who was obviously not in Global

Hospital on 21.06.2013, could not have executed the Will in

Global Hospital.

7. The respondents 2 and 3 produced various

documents to demonstrate that the respondent No.2 was the

legally wedded wife of the deceased/plaintiff and that the Will

executed by the deceased/plaintiff on 21.06.2013 had been

properly executed in favour of the respondents 2 and 3.

P.Ws.3 and 4, who are said to be the attestors of the Will

dated 21.06.2013 had been examined and had deposed that

the Will had been executed by the deceased/plaintiff before

them.

8. The trial Court after going through the evidence

and hearing both sides had held that the respondents 2 and 3

had demonstrated that the respondent No.2 was married to

the deceased/plaintiff on 24.08.1986 and that the Will said to

have been executed by the deceased/plaintiff on 21.06.2013

had been proved by examining P.Ws.3 and 4, who were the

attestors to the said Will.

9. Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the

petitioner would submit that the scope of the enquiry before

the trial Court, was restricted, in view of the earlier directions

of this Court dated 01.11.2019, to the question of whether the

Will dated 21.06.2013 had been proved to the satisfaction of

RRR,J CRP.No.1034 of 2021

the trial Court. However, the trial Court went into issues such

as the alleged marriage between the deceased plaintiff and the

respondent No.2 and gave findings of fact which are not borne

out by the record. She would further submit that the trial

Court recorded the contention of the petitioner that the

respondent No.2 had not demonstrated whether her first

husband, namely Ravipati Hanumantha Rao was alive or dead

by the time of the alleged marriage between the respondent

No.2 and the deceased plaintiff. However, the trial Court then

went on to hold at internal page 19 of the Judgment that it

was the admitted case on both sides that the 1st husband of

the respondent No.2 had passed away before 24.08.1986. She

submits that in the circumstances, the findings of the trial

Court have to be set-aside both on the ground of improper

assessment of evidence and the ground that the trial Court

went beyond the scope of the enquiry fixed by the order of this

Court dated 01.11.2019.

10. Sri Kolluri Arjun Chowdary, learned counsel for

the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that the trial Court had

considered the marriage certificate and the documents issued

by the temple where the marriage took place between the

respondent No.2 and the deceased plaintiff to arrive at a

finding that a marriage had been solemnized between the

respondent No.2 and deceased plaintiff on 24.08.1986 itself.

He further submits that the requirement of proving the Will

dated 21.06.2013 had been discharged by the respondents 2

RRR,J CRP.No.1034 of 2021

and 3 by adducing the evidence of R.Ws.3 and 4, who are the

attestors of the said Will. He would further submit that the

trial Court had rightly accepted the Will dated 21.06.2013 and

the same cannot be set-aside merely on the ground that the

petitioner is unwilling to accept the marriage between the

deceased/plaintiff and the respondent No.2.

11. As pointed out by Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi,

learned counsel for the petitioner, the scope of the enquiry

before the trial Court had been fixed by the order of this Court

dated 01.11.2019, to the question whether the Will of

21.06.2013, said to have been executed by the deceased

plaintiff has been proved or not.

12. In view of the scope of the above enquiry, the trial

Court could not have gone into the question of whether there

was a valid marriage between the respondent No.2 and the

deceased plaintiff or not and as to whether the said marriage

took place on 24.08.1986 or not. These are issues to be left

open for further enquiry during the course of the suit.

13. As far as the question of proving the Will dated

21.06.2013 is concerned, the attestors to the Will have been

examined as P.ws.3 and 4. The deposition of these two

witnesses to the Will dated 21.06.2013 has not been shaken in

the course of the cross examination and as such, it would

have to be held that there is a prima facie case of the deceased

RRR,J CRP.No.1034 of 2021

plaintiff having executed a Will in favour of the respondents 2

and 3.

14. In that view of the matter, the Civil Revision

Petition is disposed of holding that the respondents 2 and 3

can be permitted to implead themselves as L.Rs of the

deceased/plaintiff. Since, this revision is being disposed of on

a prima facie view of the matter, it is left open to the petitioner

herein, to re-agitate all the issues raised in the present

application, in the course of the trial. There shall be no order

as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Civil

Revision Petition shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 23-02-2022 RJS

RRR,J CRP.No.1034 of 2021

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1034 of 2021

Date : 23.02.2022

RJS

RRR,J CRP.No.1034 of 2021