Dismissed

Chekuri Srinivas v. Kandilli Atchiayamma

Andhra Pradesh HC27 Feb 2024CRP/110/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision prayer to quash an order allowing substitution of respondents as legal representatives who executed gift deeds. The Court clarified that substitution does not grant independent title and the prayer for amending the plaint was not considered by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed being devoid of merit. It was clarified that the prayer for amendment to add para-11A was not allowed nor rejected but left open for a fresh application.

Chekuri Srinivas Vs Kandilli Atchiayamma — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶5

<
a:
>
o ,
♦

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 110 OF 2024

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . praying to set aside the order, dated 09.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.272 of 2022 in O.S.No.223 of 2019 by the III Additional Junior CiviUudge,^Kakinada.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Chekuri Srinivas, S/o. Seshayya, aged 51 years, Hindu, Private Business, R/o D.No.2-17E-5, Venkatnagar, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

Kandilli Atchiayamma, (died).

¶12

Kandilli Satyavathi, W/o. Appalakonda aged 47 years, Hindu,

¶13

Housewife, R/o. Door No. 1-44, Penumarthi Village, Kakinada

¶14

Rural Mandal.

¶15

Eerugula Suryakantham, W/o. Sathi Raju, aged 46 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o. D.No.1-44, Penumarthi Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal

¶16

...Respondents/Proposed Plaintiffs

¶17

Kandilli Janakiramayya, S/o. late Venkata Swamy, aged 57 years, Hindu, Agricultural Labourer, R/o. Penumarthi Village, Thammavaram Post, Kakinada Rural Mandal.

¶18

Kandilli Appalakonda, S/o. late Venkata Swamy, aged 55 years, Hindu, Agricultural Labourer, R/o. Penumarthi Village, Thammavaram Post Kakinada Rural Mandal.

¶19

Vadlammani Ravi Rajendra, S/o. Ramamurthy, aged 55 years Hindu Private Business, R/o D.No.9-9-7, Kothapeta Veedhi, Peddapuram.

¶20

Chintapalli Apparao, S/o. NA, aged 58 years, Hindu, Real Estate Business, R/o Penumarthi Village, Thammavaram Post,^{KakinadaRural} Mandal.

¶21

...Respondents/Defendant Nos. 2 to 5

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶23

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.223 of 2019 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P RAJASEKHAR

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶26

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶27

RNT, J CRP No.ll0of2024

¶28

■~4

¶29

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶31

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 110 of 2024

¶32

JUDGMENT:

¶33

Heard Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

¶34

The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.223 of 2019 pending in the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The plaintiff, 1 respondent herein, deceased, filed the said suit for declaration that the plaintiff was an absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties by cancelling the sale deed dated 27.07.2011 vide Document No.2941/2011. The^{saidsaledeedwas} executed by the defendant in the capacity of the Power of Attorney Holder of the defendants No.2 and 3 in favour of the 1"* defendant.

¶35

During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died.^{Thedefendants2and3} are the sons of the deceased plaintiff. The present respondents 2 and 3 are the daughter and daughter-in-law respectively of the deceased plaintiff. The present respondents 2 and 3 filed I.A.No.272 of 2022 under Order 22 Rule 3, Order 1 Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPCO- They set up the case that the plaintiff had executed two registered gift deeds dated 20.07.2011 vide document Nos.2802 & 2803 of 2011 in their favour.

¶36

In the application I.A.No.272 of 2022 respondents 2 and 3 also prayed to add para-1 lA after para-11 of the plaint by way of amendment. By such

¶37

RNT, J 3 CRP No.ll0of2024

¶38

proposed amendment, in substance they tried to set up an independent title in themselves based on the gift deeds dated 20.07.2011.

¶39

The learned Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, by the impugned order dated 09.10.2023 allowed I.A.No.272 of 2022. It has observed that the said respondents 2 and 3 are the 'legal Representatives^' of the deceased as covered within such expression as defined under Section 2 (11) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC'). The learned trial Court observed that the two gift deeds, prima facie, showed that the plaintiff had executed registered gift deeds in respect of the plaint schedule properties and relying thereupon for the purposes of substitution, the application had been allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that for the purpose of substitution on the death of the deceased plaintiff in view of Section 2 (11) CPC the respondents 2 and 3 would be the legal representatives and they could be allowed to be substituted in the place of the deceased plaintiff. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the respondents 2 and 3 could not set up an independent title in themselves but they could contest the suit only as stepping in the shoes of the deceased plaintiff. He submits that the application could not be allowed to add para-1 lA, in the plaint as prayed by the respondents 2 and 3. He submits that since the I.A. has been allowed therefore it would mean that the I.A. has been allowed in toto, as prayed including that part of the prayer also, by which the respondents 2 and 3 sought amendment in the plaint after para-11 by addition of para-llA.

¶40

RNT, J CRP No.ll0of2024

¶41

¶42

So far as the application with respect to substation of the respondents 2 and 3 is concerned, this Court do not find any illegality in the impugned order in allowing the application. The reason is that there are two gift deeds by deceased plaintiff in favour of the present respondents 2 and^3. The learned trial Court found that based on those gift deeds, prima facie, the respondents 2 and 3 would be the legal representatives covered under Section 2 (11) CPC.

¶43

Section 2 (11) CPC reads as under:

¶44

“2(11) "legal representative" means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person^{whointermeddleswiththe} estate of the deceased and where a party sues or issued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued”

¶45

As is evident from the aforesaid definition, legal representative means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or issued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing^orsued.

¶46

The two gift deeds are with respect to the plaint schedule properties of the deceased plaintiff, on which point there is no factual dispute. Consequently, prima facie, based on the gift deeds, respondents No.2 and 3 are the legal representatives and in allowing their application to the extent of substitution, no fault can be found in the impugned order. The substitution is only for the purposes to represent the interests of the .deceased in the suit and allowing the application for substitution does not determine any title or the iis in

¶47

RNT, J CRP No. no of 2024

¶48

¶49

favour of such legal representatives, as in the present case either based on gift deeds or otherwise, the Hs is decided in trial of the suit.

¶50

So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that allowing the application amounts to application being allowed in toto i.e., with respect to proposed para-1 lA as well is concerned, this Court is not convinced with the submission. The reason is that, from perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that, that part of the prayer of the respondents 2 and 3 in the application to add para-llA, to which objection was also filed by the petitioner, has neither been considered nor dealt with by the learned trial Court. In the absence of any such consideration in the impugned order on the point of addition of para-1 lA in the plaint by amendment, in the light of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, it cannot be said that the said part of the prayer in LA. has also been allowed. It also does not mean that such prayer was rejected. The entire consideration by the learned trial Court, in the view of this Court, is confined only to the subject of the application for the substitution of the respondents 2 and 3 in the place of the deceased plaintiff. Therefore, there is no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, that part of the prayer in I.A. to add para-1 lA has also been allowed.

¶51

With the aforesaid observation and clarification, the civil revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.

¶52

It is however made clear that it is open for the respondents 2 and 3 to file application for amendment for the prayer with respect to para-1 lA as in

¶53

RNT,J CRP No.ll0of2024

¶54

¶55

I.A.No.272 of 2022, and if any such application is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law with due opportunity to the petitioner.

¶56

No order as to costs.

¶57

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in

¶58

consequence.

¶59

SD/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SEci^o^ FFICER

To,

The III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri. P. Rajasekhar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶64

Three C.D Copies.

SSL

sree

/ /

HIGH COURT

DATED:28/02/2024 V,

ORDER

CRP.No.110of2024

DISMISSING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Chekuri Srinivas v. Kandilli Atchiayamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chekuri Srinivas v. Kandilli Atchiayamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Parvathi, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pallam Ramanaiah Vs G Sai Prasad, IAS

Mamidala Bhaskar Vs Shamsher Singh Rawat,I.a.S

Burre Raju Vs Neelam Papamani

Mulampaka Sarada, Vs Namana Sravanthi

Muthabathula Ratna Kumar Vs Putta Venkata Satya Somasekhar