Smt.K.Uma Bai Vs Smt.K.Veeru Bai

¶1

APHCQ10212992024

¶2

IN TH^ HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

THURSDAY, the ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SgJATHA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1020 OF 2024

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, ageinst the order dated 07-02-2024 passed in I.A.No.287/2023 in SOP No.10/2019 by the Principal Civil Judge [Senior Division], Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt.K.Uma Bai, W/o Late K.Bhikam Singh, aged about 73 years, R/o H.No.30/90, Chittari Street, K,urnool Town, Kurnool^District.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

Smt K.Veeru Bai, W/o Late K.Bikam Singh, aged about 70 years, R/o H NO.30/97, Chittari Street, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

¶12

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶13

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 stay all further proceedings in SOP No.10/2019 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge [Senior Division],' Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶14

/ /

¶15

: Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad Counsel for the Petitioner

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Sravan Kumar Mannava

¶17

The Court made the following;

¶18

APHC010212992024

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT QF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶20

[3333]

¶21

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶22

THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE honourable SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶25

niVII REVISION PETITION NO: 1020/2Q24

¶26

Between:

¶27

1.SMTX.UMA BAI, W/0 LATE K BHIKAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. R/0 H.NO.30/98, CHITTARI STREET, KURNOOL TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶28

...PETITIONER

¶29

AND

¶30

1.SMT K VEERU BAI, W/o Late K Bikam Singh, aged about. 70^years. R/o H NO.30/97, Chittari Street, Kurnool Town, Kurnool^District.

¶31

...RESPONDENT

¶32

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that^inthe circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the^{HighCourtmaybe} pleased to set aside the order passed in lA No.287/2023^{mSOPNo.10/2019} by the Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, dated 07-022024 and pass

¶33

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶34

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybepleased}

¶35

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶36

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybepleased} the Docket proceedings dated 28-03-2025 may be pleased to Suspend

¶37

lt.J

¶38

2

¶39

C.R.P.No.1020 Of 2024

¶40

passed in SOP No. 10/2019 on the file of Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool and pass lA NO: 2 OF 20?.^ 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 pleased to Suspend the Docket proceedings dated 26-06-2025 passed in SOP No. 10/2019 on the file of Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool and pass

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶42

1 J U M V PRASAD

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶44

1 SRAVAN KUMAR MANNAVA

¶45

The Court made the following:

¶46

3

¶47

VS,J C.R.P.No.l020of2024

¶48

ORDER:

¶49

The present Civil Revi’sion Petition is filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.287^{of2023inS.O.P.No.10of} 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

¶50

The petitioner herein filed S.O.P-No.10 of 2019 seeking^issuanceofa succession certificate, claiming that she is the only legally wedded wife of late K.Bikam Singh. In the said S.O.P., the petitioner has already filed her chiefexamination affidavit as PW1 and marked Exs.AI to A9. PW2 was also examined on her behalf.

¶51

The case was posted for further evidence on behalf of the petitioner. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.287 of 2023 seeking^to amend the main S.O.P. by adding her name as “Smt.Uma Bai @ A.V.Uma^{Maheswari”onthe} ground that, at the time of fling of the above S.O.P.,^{shehadnotinformedher} counsel that her original name is A.V.Uma Maheswari, and that after her marriage, she has also been called as Smt.K.Uma Bai,^therefore, it is just and necessary to amend the petition to show her name as Smt.Uma Bai @ A.V. Uma Maheswari.

¶52

The said application was dismissed by the Court below^on07.02.2024 on the ground that there is no evidence on record to show that the original name of the petitioner is A.V.Uma Maheswari. Challenging^{thesaidorder,the} present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶53

4

¶54

10

¶55

’ VSJ C.R.P.No.1020 of 2024

¶56

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned^{counselforthe} respondent.

¶57

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner^submitted that the Court below ought to have appreciated that Ex.A1 is the registered Marriage Certificate issued by the Registrar of Marriages at Madras, dated 02.04.1970 and hence, the petition cannot be treated as an afterthought. In Ex.A1, it is clearly mentioned that Sri K.Bhikam Singh, S/o K.Ramchander Singh, and Srimathi Venkata Uma Maheswari D/o A.Veeraraju got^married.The Court below ought to have appreciated that, in the cause title, the present name of the petitioner has been mentioned which is in common usage in the society. However, the document under Ex.AI, filed along with^{mainS.O.P.revealsher} name as Venkata Uma Maheswari, who married K.Bhikam Singh. As such the amendment sought in the cause-title to reflect her name as “K.Uma Bai @ A.V.Uma Maheswari” is neither a new fact nor an afterthought,^but is borne out by the record. Therefore, the petitioner prays for the petition to be allowed.

¶58

Learned counsel for the respondent submit that the alleged marriage certificate was manipulated and introduced by the petitioner in the above S.O.P. and the petitioner has now developed the idea of putting-forth a false theory of having dual names. There are absolutely no grounds to believe the new theory now propounded by the petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶59

5

¶60

VS,J C.R.P.No.l020of2024

¶61

The S.O.P. has been filed seeking issuance of succession^{certificateon} the ground that she is the legally wedded wife of late K.Bhikam Singh. To prove her case in the S.O.P., the petitioner relies on the Marriage Certificate dated 02.04.1970 marked as Ex.AI in her evidence. Now, on the basis of the said certificate, the petitioner seeks amendment of^hername in the S.O.P. Since the certificate has already been marked as Ex.AI and the respondent is disputing the said document as well as the legality of the marriage itself. It is appropriate for the petitioner to adduce evidence to^{theextentofthe} said document to prove that she is also called as K.Uma^{Bai.Hence,thetrialCourt} has rightly dismissed the application and no interference is warranted therewith.

¶62

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to adduce further evidence to substantiate the said document/Ex.AI. No costs.

¶63

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

¶64

stand closed.

¶65

//TRUE COPY//

¶66

Sd/-B PRASADA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶67

To,

¶68