Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Tirumalareddy Aswartha Narayana Reddy vs Tirumalareddy Bala Aswartha Narayana ... on 19 November, 2024
APHC010453462024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3328]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 2552 & 2559 of 2024
C.R.P.No.2552 of 2024
Between:
1. TIRUMALAREDDY ASWARTHA NARAYANA REDDY, S/O. PEDDA
NARAYANA REDDY AGE 50 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.
PARLAPADU VILLAGE AND POST, RAJUMPALEM MANDAL,
KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. TIRUMALAREDDY BALA ASWARTHA NARAYANA REDDY, S/O.
PEDDA NARAYANA REDDY, AGE 43 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION,
R/O. PARLAPADU VILLAGE AND POST, RAJUPALEM MANDAL,
KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. MADURU PRATAP REDDY, S/O. SUBBA REDDY, AGE 43 YEARS,
OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 17/158, S.R.K. STREET,
PRODDATUR TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
(DIED AND HIS LR ARE RESPONDENT 7 TO 10)
3. GUNNALA VISWANATH REDDY, S/O VENKATAPATHI REDDY AGE
33 YEARS, R/O. PARLAPADU VILLAGE AND POST, RAJUPALEM
MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
4. AVULA RAJASEKHAR REDDY, S/O SUBBA REDDY, AGE 38
2
YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 26/913, MAHENDRA NAGAR,
DORASANIPALLI ROAD, PRODDATUR TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
5. KETHEPALLI NARASIMHA RAO, S/O. SUBBA RAYUDU AGE 78
YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 22/195, VASANTHAPETA, PRODDATUR
TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH.
6. THOTA JAYARAMI REDDY, S/O. CHINNA ESWARA REDDY, AGE
65 YEARS, R/O. PARLAPADU VILLAGE AND POST, RAJUPALEM
MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
7. MADURU ANJANA DEVI, W/O. LATE MADURU PRATAP REDDY,
AGE 54 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/O. OPP TO HOUSE OF DR.
M.V. RAMA REDDY,KHADARBAD VILLAGE, PRODDATUR
MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH.
8. MADURU VINAY KUMAR REDDY, S/O LATE MADURU PRATAP
REDDY, AGE 34 YEARS, R/O. KHADARBAD VILLAGE, OPP TO
HOUSE OF DR. M.V. RAMA REDDY, PRODDATUR MANDAL,
KADAPA DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH.
9. MADURU DINAKAR REDDY, S/O LATE MADURU PRATAP REDDY,
AGE 32 YEARS, R/O. KHADARBAD VILLAGE, OPP TO HOUSE OF
DR. M.V. RAMA REDDY, PRODDATUR MANDAL, KADAPA
DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH.
10. MADURU JAYA PRAKASH REDDY, S/O LATE MADURU PRATAP
REDDY, AGE 30 YEARS, R/O. KHADARBAD VILLAGE, OPP TO
HOUSE OF DR. M.V. RAMA REDDY, PRODDATUR MANDAL,
KADAPA DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V NITESH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
C.R.P.No.2559 of 2024
3
Between:
1. TIRUMALAREDDY ASWARTHA NARAYANA REDDY, S/O. PEDDA
NARAYANA REDDY, AGE 50 YEARS, OCOBUSUNESS, R/O.
PARLAPADU VILLAGE AND POST, RAJUMPALEM MANDAL,
KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. TIRUMLAREDDY BALA ASWARTHA NARAYANA REDDY, S/O.
PEDDA NARAYANA REDDY, AGE 43 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION,
R/O. PARLAPADU VILLAGE AND POST, RAJUPALEM MANDAL,
KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. MADURU PRATAP REDDY, S/O. SUBBA REDDY, AGE 43 YEARS,
OCOBUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 17/158, S.R.K. STREET, PRODDATUR
TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. (DIED AND HIS
LR ARE RESPONDENT 7 TO 10)
3. GUNNALA VISWANATH REDDY, , S/O VENKATAPATHI REDDY
AGE 33 YEARS, R/O. PARLAPADU VILLAGE AND POST,
RAJUPALEM MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
4. AVULA RAJASEKHAR REDDY, S/O SUBBA REDDY, AGE 38
YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 26/913, MAHENDRA NAGAR,
DORASANIPALLI ROAD, PRODDATUR TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
5. KETHEPALLI NARASIMHA RAO, S/O. SUBBA RAYUDU AGE 78
YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 22/195, VASANTHAPETA, PRODDATUR
TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH.
6. THOTA JAYARAMI REDDY, S/O. CHINNA ESWARA REDDY, AGE
65 YEARS, R/O. PARLAPADU VILLAGE AND POST, RAJUPALEM
MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
7. MADURU ANJANA DEVI, W/O. LATE MADURU PRATAP REDDY,
AGE 54 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. OPP TO HOUSE OF DR.
M.V, RAMA REDDY,KHADARBAD VILLAGE PRODDATUR
MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH.
4
8. MADURU VINAY KUMAR REDDY, S/O LATE MADURU PRATAP
REDDY, AGE 34 YEARS, R/O. KHADARBAD VILLAGE, OPP TO
HOUSE OF DR. M.V. RAMA REDDY PRODDATUR MANDAL,
KADAPA DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH.
9. MADURUDINAKAR REDDY, S/O LATE MADURU PRATAP REDDY,
AGE 32 YEARS, R/O. KHADARBAD VILLAGE, OPP TO HOUSE OF
DR. M.V. RAMA REDDY, PRODDATUR MANDAL, KADAPA
DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH.
10. MADURU JAYA PRAKASH REDDY, S/O LATE MADURU PRATAP
REDDY, AGE 30 YEARS, R/O. KHADARBAD VILLAGE, OPP TO
HOUSE OF DR. M.V. RAMA REDDY, PRODDATUR MANDAL,
KADAPA DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V NITESH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
1. The above Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the Plaintiff challenging
the separate orders passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur in I.A.No.144
of 2024 and I.A.No.145 of 2024 dated 19.07.2024 in O.S.No.14 of 2006.
2. C.R.P.No.2559 of 2024 is filed challenging the order dated 19.07.2024
passed in I.A.No.144 of 2024 in O.S.No.14 of 2006. The said I.A.No.144 of
2024 is filed by the Plaintiff under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure,
seeking reopening of the Suit.
3. C.R.P.No.2552 of 2024 is filed challenging the order dated 19.07.2024
passed in I.A.No.145 of 2024 in O.S.No.14 of 2006. The said I.A.No.145 of
2024 is filed by the Plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure
seeking to amend the Suit in the interest of justice.
4. By the two separate orders the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur was
pleased to dismiss both the Interlocutory Applications by orders dated
19.07.2024.
5. The Plaintiff challenged these orders of the Senior Civil Judge,
Proddatur dated 19.07.2024 in the above mentioned Civil Revision Petitions.
6. Before getting into the appreciation of the impugned orders, it is
necessary for this Court to note certain cardinal facts which are as under:
6.1. Plaintiff filed a Suit for declaration of Title Deed in the year 2006.
He had pleaded that he is in possession of the Suit Schedule Property. The
Suit is initially filed against his brother (Defendant No.1) and two other
Defendants who are alleged to be the subsequent purchasers of the property.
It is alleged by the Plaintiff that the Defendant No.1, in collusion with
Defendant No.3, has fabricated the Title Deed dated 23.08.2004 in favour of
the Defendant No.3. The Defendant No.3 has filed the written statement (at
Page No.42 of the Paper Book) in the year in which the Suit has been filed
stating very clearly that by virtue of an oral partition between the Plaintiff and
the Defendant No.1, the Defendant No.1 acquired the said property and
became the absolute owner.
6.2. It is further stated in his (Defendant No.3) Written Statement that,
the Defendant No.1 had later sold away the Suit Schedule Property through
Registered Sale Deed dated 23.08.2004 to the Defendant No.2 for a valuable
consideration of Rs.3,12,000/- (Three lakhs twelve thousand Rupees) and that
at the time of purchase, the Defendant No.1 and the Plaintiff represented to
the Defendant No.2 that the Suit Schedule Property has fallen exclusively to
the share of the Defendant No.1. Therefore, the Plaintiff had full knowledge of
the execution of the Sale Deed by the Defendant No.1 in favour of the
Defendant No.2 and that the Plaintiff himself has figured as an 'identifying
witness' and 'attestor' to the Registered Sale Deed dated 23.08.2004. On
10.02.2005, the Defendant No.2 had sold away the Suit schedule property to
Defendant No.3 (who was a minor represented by his grandfather) for a valid
consideration and took possession.
6.3. In pursuance of the said Sale Deed and the registration of the
Sale Deed on 10.02.2005, the Defendant No.3 took possession through
guardian on the same date. It is also stated that the revenue authorities have
issued Pattadhar Pass Books and Title Deed in favour of the Defendant No.3
and that the said Defendant has raised Bengal gram crop in the Suit Schedule
land in that year. In Paragraph No.7 of the written statement filed by the
Defendant No.3 it is clearly stated that the Plaintiff is out of possession of the
Suit Schedule Property.
6.4. It is also stated that the Plaint ought to have been amended
seeking for declaration of possession also and the Suit for permanent
injunction is not at all maintainable. The Defendant No.3 has also filed an
Additional Written Statement (at page No.45 of the paperbook) in the month of
March, 2018 stating that the impleadment applications filed by the Plaintiff to
implead Defendant Nos.4 & 5 in collusion with the Defendant No.1 is only with
an intention to drag on the Suit proceeding.
6.5. It is also stated that the Plaintiff filed I.P.No.57 of 2005 and the
same was allowed and the Plaintiff was declared as an insolvent by the
Insolvency Court on 22.07.2009. It is again stated in the Additional Written
Statement by the Defendant No.3 that the Plaintiff has neither title nor
possession of the Suit Schedule Property and that there are no bonafides on
part of the Plaintiff in prosecuting the Suit claim.
6.6. The newly impleaded Defendant No.5 has filed Written Statement
on 27.12.2017 (at page No.47 of the paperbook) that the Defendant Nos.4 & 5
are strangers to the family of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1. It is stated that
they are the third parties who have purchased in a bonafide manner. It is also
stated that the Sale Deed executed by the Defendant No.1 in favour of
Defendant No.2 (on 23.08.2004) and the Sale Deed executed by the
Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.3 (on 10.02.2005) are bonafide.
6.7. It is also stated that the Defendant No.4 purchased the Suit
Schedule land from Defendant No.3 and Defendant No.5 from Defendant
No.4. It is also stated that before purchasing the Suit Schedule Property from
the Defendant No.3, the Defendant No.4 and Defendant No.5 have verified
the title and Encumbrance Certificate and purchased the land for a valuable
consideration and therefore they are the bonafide purchasers. It is also
submitted that the Defendant No.5 has sold away a part of the Suit Schedule
Property to one Thota Jayarami Reddy, S/o Eshwara Reddy, by way of a
registered Sale Deed bearing No.3781 of 2017 dated 20.07.2017 for valuable
consideration and the said Jayarami Reddy is now in possession and
enjoyment of the Plaint Schedule Property. It is also stated in Paragraph No.4
of the written statement filed by the Defendant No.5 that the Plaintiff is well
aware of each and every transaction, but he had intentionally concealed the
same since 28.10.2013 and after lapse of four year, he has now filed the
Petition to implead the Respondent No.5 only to drag on the matter.
6.8. The Plaintiff once again filed another application to implead Thota
Jayarami Reddy as Defendant No.6. This Defendant No.6 has filed Written
Statement. The said Defendant No.6 has taken a specific plea that the Suit
itself is not maintainable since the Suit is filed seeking declaration of title and
consequential injunction is not maintainable as per Section 34 of Specific
Relief Act, because the Plaintiff is out of possession of the Suit Schedule
Property even by the date of filing of the Suit itself. It is also stated that the
Suit is not maintainable by application of the provisions of the Provincial
Insolvency Act since the Plaintiff was declared as an insolvent.
7. At this stage, this Court is conscious of the fact that the present Suit has
been pending since the year 2006 and that the Plaintiff has been filing the
applications consistently to implead more and more parties as Defendants.
Therefore, this Court has to be conscious to the fact that any adverse
observations made in the present order may affect the interest of either the
Plaintiff or the Defendants. In this view of the matter, having taken note of the
above facts, this Court would confine itself to appreciation of the impugned
orders herein (dated 19.07.2024 in I.A.Nos.144 & 145 of 2024). This Court
has perused the impugned orders. Since the impugned order refers to various
pleadings involved in the Suit, including the Plaint, the amendment
applications and applications for impleadment, all the facts mentioned herein
above were considered.
8. Having considered the above facts, this Court, while refraining from
commenting anything on merit, would only hold that in the considered opinion
of this Court, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Senior
Civil Judge, Proddatur. This Court is also of the opinion that the present Civil
Revision Petitions are devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the Civil Revision
Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
9. Before parting with this case, this Court would deem it extremely
necessary to issue certain directions keeping in view the very age of the Suit
itself which has been instituted by the Plaintiff in the year 2006. It is
unfortunate that for one reason or the other that the Suit was not progressing,
which is not in the interest of any of the parities. In this view of the matter,
there shall be a direction to the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur to take up the
Suit on a day to day basis and complete the trial within six months from the
date of communication of the order of this Court. From the date of conclusion
of the trail and submissions/arguments, the trial Court is directed to render a
Judgment within three months thereafter. The Plaintiff and all the Defendants
are directed to co-operate with the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur. The Senior
Civil Judge, Proddatur shall not grant adjournments in a casual manner unless
there is a genuine reason for it, which shall be recorded in writing for every
such adjournment.
10. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order directly to the
Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur for proper compliance.
11. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
_________________________________
GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
Dt:19.11.2024
VTS
