Allowed

Chaparla Rama Krishna Rao v. Smt Achanta Vijayalakshmi

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Dec 2024AS/569/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an interim decree in a partition suit where the Additional Agent passed an order without issuing proper notice to the appellant, violating the principles of natural justice. The Court remanded the matter to the Agency Court for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 03.08.2024 is set aside. The Agency Court is directed to issue notices to all parties, fix a date, and conclude proceedings within three months.

Chaparla Rama Krishna Rao Vs Smt… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY. THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶9

APPEAL SUIT NO: 569 OF 2024

¶10

Appeal filed under Section Rule 49 of Agency Rules 1924, aggrieved by the Order dated 03-08-2024 passed in O.S.No.238/2021 (F2) on the file of the Court of Additional Agent to the Government and Project Officer, I.T.DA, K.R. Puram.

¶11

Between:

¶12

Chaparla Rama Krishna Rao, S/o. Narayana Murthy, Aged 78 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Vankavarigudem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, Eluru District.

¶13

(Father of the Appellant amended as per Court Order^{Dated20.12.2024} in I.A No.3/24)

¶14

...Appellant/DefendantNo.1

¶15

AND

¶16

Smt. Achanta Vijayalakshmi, W/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 67 years, R/o. Vankavarigudem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, Eluru^District.

¶17

Smt. Gunnam Radha Kumari, W/o. Late Sreenivasa Rao, Aged 53 years, R/o. Seemakurthivari Rice Mill Street, Aswaraopeta,^Khammam District.

¶18

Smt. Doddapaneni Jhansi, W/o. Gandhi, aged 55 years, R/o. Peddavaram Village, Tallapudi Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶19

Kum. Chaparla Aruna, D/o. Narayana Murthy, aged 45 years, R/o. Peddavaram Village, Tallapudi Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶20

Kum. Chaparla Archana, D/o. Narayana Murthy, Aged 18 Years, R/o. Peddavaram Village, Tallapudi Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶21

Chaparla Sreenivas, S/o. Sreehari Murthy, Aged 47 years, R/o. Vankavarigudem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, Eluru^District.

¶22

Chaparla Satyanarayana, S/o. Sreehari Murthy, Aged 45 years, R/o. Vankavarigudem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, Eluru^District.

¶23

Smt. Parimi Gopika Rani, W/o. Prasad, aged 43 years,^{R/o.Pasivedala} Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶24

Smt. Palacharla Ananta Laxmi, W/o. Ramesh, aged 42 years, R/o. Mulakala Lanka Village, Seetanagaram Mandal, East Godavari^District.

¶25

...Respondents/Defendants 2 to 9

¶26

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶27

Petition under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC, r/w 151 of CPC., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Order dated 03-08-2024 passed in O.S.No.238/2021 (F2) on the file of the Court of Additional Agent to the Government and Project Officer, I.T.D.A., K.R. Puram.

¶28

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶29

Between:

¶30

Smt. Achanta Vijayalakshmi, W/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 67 years, R/o. Vankavarigudem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, Eluru District

¶31

...Respondent/1 Respondent

¶32

AND

¶33

Chaparla Rama Krishna Rao, S/o. Narayana Murthy, Aged 78 years, Occ; Agriculture, R/o. Vankavarigudem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, Eluru District.

¶34

(Father of the Appellant amended as per Court Order Dated 20.12.2024 in I.A No.3/24)

¶35

...Appellant/Respondent

¶36

Smt. Gunnam Radha Kumari, W/o. Late Sreenivasa Rao, Aged 53 years, R/o. Seemakurthivari Rice Mill Street, Aswaraopeta, Khammam District.

¶37

Smt. Doddapaneni Jhansi, W/o. Gandhi, aged 55 years, R/o. Peddavaram Village, Tallapudi Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶38

Kum. Chaparla Aruna, D/o. Narayana Murthy, aged 45 years, R/o. Peddavaram Village, Tallapudi Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶39

Kum. Chaparla Archana, D/o. Narayana Murthy, Aged^18Years R/o. Peddavaram Village, Tallapudi Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶40

Chaparla Sreenivas, S/o. Sreehari Murthy, Aged 47 years, R/o. Vankavarigudem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, Eluru District.

¶41

Chaparla Satyanarayana, S/o. Sreehari Murthy, Aged 45 years, R/o. Vankavarigudem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, Eluru^District.

¶42

Smt. Parimi Gopika Rani, W/o. Prasad, aged 43 years,^{R/o.Pasivedala} Village, Kovvur Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶43

Smt. Palacharla Ananta Laxmi, W/o. Ramesh, aged 42 years, R/o. Mulakala Lanka Village, Seetanagaram Mandal, East Godavari^District.

¶44

...Respondents/Respondents

¶45

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 to Vacate the interim orders passed in I.A.No.1/2024 in A.S.No.569/2024 dated 29.10.2024 and dismissed the A.S.569/2024.

¶46

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Venkata Rao Burla

¶47

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI P. R. K. Amerandra^Kumar

¶48

Counsel for other Respondents: None Appeared

¶49

The Court made the following:

¶50

PAPHC010478342024

¶51

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶52

3494

¶53

FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶54

BSpresent

¶55

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶56

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶57

APPEAL SUIT No.569 OF 2024

¶58

Between:

¶59

Chaparla Rama Krishna Rao, S/o.Satyanarayana, Aged 78 Years, Occ;Agriculture, R/o. Venkavarigudem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, Eluru District. Appellant

¶60

and

¶61

Achanta Vijayalakshmi, W/o.Satyanarayana, Aged 67 Years, R/o. Venkavarigudem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, Eluru District and 8 others. Respondents, Counsel for the appellant Sri Burla Venkata Rao Counsel for the respondent No. 1 Sri P.R.K. Amarendra Kumar

¶62

The Court made the following

¶63

JUDGMENT: {Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Sumathi Jagadam)

¶64

This Appeal Suit is filed by the appellant/1 defendant seeking to set aside the order dated 03.08.2024 passed in O.S. No.238 of 2021 (F2) by the learned Additional Agent to the Government and Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development

¶65

¶66

NJS.J & JS.J AS No. 569/2024

¶67

Agency (ITDA), K.R.Puratn, Eluru District (for short, 'the Agency Court), and consequently dismiss the Suit with costs.

¶68

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed before the Agency Court.

¶69

The 1st respondent/plaintiff initially filed the suit before the Court of Agent to Government and District Collector, Eluru, and was registered as O.S. No.238 of 2021 (F2).

¶70

Later, the said Suit was transferred to the Court of Additional Agent to Government and Project Officer, ITDA, K.R. Puram, vide proceedings in Roc.No. E-1856842/2021/F2, dated 09.09.2021

¶71

The father of the 1®^ respondent/plaintiff viz., Chaparla Narayana Murthy has acquired the lands from Chetapalli Suryanarayana Murthy and others under a registered sale deed No.556 of 1961, dated 02.06.1961, of the SRO Jangareddigudem. While so, the father of the 1 respondent/plaintiff died intestate in the year 1973 and, subsequently, the mother of the 1®‘ respondent/plaintiff also died in the year 1984, leaving behind the 1®' respondent/plaintiff and their three sons viz., Chaparla Ramakrishna Rao (appellant herein), Chaparla Subba Rao and Chaparla Sreehari

¶72

Murthy.

¶73

¶74

NJS.J & JS,J AS No. 569/2024

¶75

In the suit, it was alleged that the appellant/1®^defendant in the Suit, along with his sons, went to the extent of creating revenue records in their names to defeat the interests of other family members, including the 1® respondent/plaintiff.

¶76

The 1®* respondent/plaintiff demanded the appellant/1 St defendant and other respondents to partition the plaint^schedule property into four (4) equal shares and allow one (1)^suchshare in the suit schedule property, as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and to put her in separate possession.

¶77

On 03.08.2024, the Additional Agent to the Government^and Project Officer, ITDA, K.R.Puram decreed the Suit by partitioning Item Nos.1 to 11 of the plaint schedule property into four (4) equal shares and allotted 1/4**^ share to the 1®* respondent/plaintiff^and further directed the Tahsildar, Jeelugumilli to enter^hername in online revenue records and issue pattadar passbook.

¶78

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/1 ®‘ defendant has preferred this Appeal Suit on the ground that the order, dated 03.08.2024, passed by the Project Officer, is contrary^tolawand against the principles of natural justice.

¶79

¶80

NJS,J & JS.J AS No. 569/2024

¶81

Broadly the case of the appellant/1 defendant is that the Additional Agent to Government and Project Officer, ITDA, issued a notice asking the appellant/first defendant to appear before the Court on 04.08.2024, but surprisingly, the matter was advanced to 3-8-2024, and the

¶82

suit was decreed without giving opportunity or notice. Due to this inadvertent act, the appellant/first defendant lost his valuable opportunity to agitate the case.

¶83

Whereas the 1®‘ respondent/plaintiff pleads that the material i.e., copy of the notice mentioning the date of hearing as 04.08.2024, filed by the appellant is not genuine, and it is a false and fabricated document for getting a favourable order from this Court and is liable for perjury.

¶84

Heard the arguments of Sri Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel, representing Sri Venkata Rao Burla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/1 defendant, and Sri P.R.K. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the 1 St respondent/plaintiff, and perused the record.

¶85

None appeared on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 9.

¶86

The short points of issue that arise for consideration are:

¶87

¶88

NJS.J&JS.J AS No. 569/2024

¶89

Whether the order under challenge was passed without proper notice and without giving an opportunity^to the appellant? 2. Whether the facts and circumstances warrant remand of the matter for fresh consideration on the ground that there was a violation of principles of audi alteram partem?

¶90

POINTS:

¶91

On 29-10-2024, this court in I.A. No. 1 of 2024 prima^facie opined that the principles of ‘Audi Alteram Partem’ have been violated, that the general practice is that if the hearing date falls on a holiday, the case is taken up on the next working day. Be that as it may.

¶92

This Court, after hearing the matter for a considerable time j has called for the original record and found that there i-IS some discrepancy in the notices, with reference to the date of hearing, which lends support to the argument that notice was initially issued to the parties to appear before the Court on 04.08.2024 and that 04.08.2024 being a Sunday, the matter was advanced to 03.08.2024, and on the same day, the impugned order was passed without notice to the appellant. However, it cannot be said that there is no notice, but it is improper, and as a result of it, the appellant has lost his valuable right to agitate the case.

¶93

¶94

NJS.J & JS,J AS No. 569/2024

¶95

¶96

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in S.R. Cold Storage v. Union of India and Others^ held as follows;

¶97

The first and foremost principle of natural justice is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says^that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. It is an approved^rule of fair play.

¶98

The principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice. Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice.

¶99

Natural justice has been variously defined by different judges, for instance a duty to act fairly, the substantial requirements of justice, the natural sense of what is right and wrong, fundamental justice and fair-playⁱⁿ action. Over the years by a process of judicial interpretation two rules have been evolved as representing the principles

¶100

2022 see Online (All) 550

¶101

¶102

NJS.J & JS,J AS No. 569/2024

¶103

of natural justice in judicial process, including therein quasi judicial and administrative process. They constitute the basic elements of a fair hearing, having their roots in the ' innate sense of man for fair-play and justice which is not the preserve of any particular race or country but is shared in common by all men. The first rule is "nemo judex in causa sua or "nemo debet esse judex in propria causa sua" that IS no man shall be a judge in his own cause. The second rule is "audi alteram partem", that is, "hear the other side". A corollary has been deduced from the above two rules and particularly the audi alteram partem rule i.e., "he who shall decide anything without the other side having been heard, although he may have said what is right, will not have been what Is right' or in other words, as it is now expressed, justice should not only be done but should manifestly^be seen to be done". Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience, to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following^the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice. (emphasis supplied)

¶104

¶105

The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another^, while dealing with a challenge^{laidtoanorder} by which a passport was impounded, after detailed survey of the legal precedents, highlighted the significance of the principles of audi alteram partem and inter alia held as follows;

¶106

But at the same time it must be remembered that this

¶107

IS a rule of vital importance in the field of administrative law

¶108

^(1978) 1 SCO 248

¶109

¶110

NJS.J & JS.J AS No. 569/2024

¶111

and it must not be jettisoned save in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands. It is a wholesome rule designed to secure the rule of law and the court should not be too ready to eschew it in its application^to a given case. True it is that in questions of this kind a fanatical or doctrinaire approach should be avoided, but that does not mean that merely because the traditional methodology of a formalized hearing may have the effect of stultifying the exercise of the statutory power, the audi alteram partem should be wholly excluded. The court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent permissible in a given case. It must not be forgotten that "natural justice is pragmatically flexible and is amenable to capsulation under the compulsive pressure^of circumstances". The audi alteram partem rule is not cast in a rigid mould and judicial decisions establish that it may suffer situational modifications. The core of it must, however remain, namely, that the person affected must have a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing^must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise. That is why Tucker, L.J., emphasised in Russel v. Duke of Norfolk [(1949) 1 All ER 109] that "whatever standard of natural justice is adopted, one essential is that the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case". What opportunity may be regarded as reasonable would necessarily depend on the practical necessities of the situation. It may be a sophisticated fullfledged hearing or it may be a hearing which is very^briefand minimal : it may be a hearing prior to the decision or it may even be a post-decisional remedial hearing. The audi^alteram partem rule is sufficiently flexible to permit modifications and

¶112

¶113

NJS.J & JS.J AS No. 569/2024

¶114

variations to suit the exigencies of myriad kinds of situations^ \A/hich may arise. (emphasis supplied)

¶115

The Apex Court, in a plethora of judgments, held that the requirement of fair liberty {Audi Alteram Partem) means that decision-makers must provide procedural fairness to all parties involved in the decision-making process. This includes giving the parties the opportunity to be heard, represented, and presented with evidence.

¶116

Though from a perusal of the attendance sheet, it would appear that there was some representation on behalf of the appellant/1 St defendant, the same clearly indicates that the appellant/1 defendant could not attend due to ill-health. That apart, from a reading of the order, it is evident that the same was passed at the instance of one of the respondents as if he is representing all. The Court below has passed orders without giving reasonable opportunity, thereby prejudicing the parties in the suit. Therefore, this Court feels it appropriate to remand^thematterfor fresh consideration, as the order under challenge suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. The points^areanswered accordingly.

¶117

¶118

NJS.J & JS,J AS No. 569/2024

¶119

In the result, the Appeal Suit is allowed, by setting^asidethe order dated 03.08.2024 passed in O.S. No.238 of 2021 (F2) by the learned Additional Agent to the Government and Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Agency (ITDA), K.R.Puram, Eluru District. Further, the Agency Court is directed to issue notices to all the parties by fixing a date, and pass orders, in accordance with law, by giving opportunity to the appellant/1 St defendant, 1 St respondent/plaintiff and other respondents and conclude the proceedings within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs.

¶120

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶121

stand closed.

¶122

Sd/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

¶123

//TRUE COPY//

¶124

SECffOfT^FFICER

¶125

To,