T. Hrishikeshava Reddy(Died) Vs D. Rukminamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

T. Hrishikeshava Reddy(Died) Vs D. Rukminamma — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 21.04.2025 in I.A.No.280 of 2024 in O.S.No.21 of 2012 set aside; trial Court directed to permit respondents No.19 to 21 to file their counter and pass appropriate order afresh without being influenced by the High Court's observations; anomaly as to who filed the counter already on record to be clarified; no orders as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the CRP stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's order dated 21.04.2025 allowing impleading of respondents No.19 to 21 (widow and sons of deceased defendant No.1) as defendants No.19 to 21 in O.S.No.21 of 2012, without giving prior notice to the proposed parties, is liable to be interfered with under Article 227. +1 more

Court's answer

No prior notice was served on the proposed respondents No.19 to 21 before allowing their impleading, depriving them of any chance to either oppose or support the relief claimed in the impleading petition; this vitiated the order.

Ratio / Principle

The trial Court ignored the registered gift deed pleaded in the counter and was misled by the will, which is the subject-matter of the suit; the contention regarding the registered gift deed had to be examined in order to decide whether the proposed parties were necessary to be impleaded.

Key takeaways

Allowing the impleading petition in a mechanical manner, without examining the crucial aspects (non-service of prior notice and the gift-deed plea), constituted an irregularity committed by the trial Court warranting interference with the impugned order.ratio¶96
Observation that if the alleged gift by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.12 is accepted by respondents No.19 to 21, they need not be brought on record as they apparently have no interest in the property.obiter¶96
Civil revision petition allowed and the order dated 21.04.2025 in I.A.No.280 of 2024 in O.S.No.21 of 2012 set aside; the trial Court is directed to permit respondents No.19 to 21 to file their counter and thereafter hear and pass appropriate order afresh without being influenced by any of the observations; it is also necessary to clarify the anomaly indicated in the order as to who filed the counter already on record; no orders as to costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India — impleading of widow and sons of deceased defendant No.1 as defendants No.19 to 21 in O.S.No.21 of 2012 (suit challenging will dated 16.12.2011) under Order XXII Rule 4, Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC — trial Court allowed impleading without issuing prior notice to the proposed parties and without examining the registered gift deed dated 23.12.2020 pleaded in the contesting respondents' counter — Held: non-service of prior notice denied the proposed parties any chance to oppose or support the relief claimed, and the gift-deed contention was crucial to determining whether their impleading was necessary; allowing the petition mechanically was an irregularity — CRP allowed, impugned order dated 21.04.2025 set aside; trial Court to take the counters of respondents No.19 to 21 and pass a fresh order uninfluenced by the High Court's observations; anomaly as to who filed the counter already on record to be clarified; no costs.

APHC010319482025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1518 OF 2025

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the Decree AND Order dt.21.4.2025 in I.A.No.280/202⁴ in O.S.No.21/2012 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.

Between:

T. Hrishikeshava reddy(died), (Died)

Smt. Y. Kiranmayee,, W/o. Dr. Y. Krishna Mohan Reddy, Aged about 61 years, R/o. D.No.3/156, Byrmal Street, Nandyal, Kurnool^District

Smt. Ahalya,, W/o. Rajasekhar Reddy, Aged about 37 years, R/o. H.N0.4/127-B Nehru Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District

Smt. T. Jaya Lakshmi,, W/o. Late T. Hrishikeshava Reddy, Aged about 71 years, R/o. Kapu Veedhi, Near Market, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District

Sri. T. Ananta Narasa Reddy,, S/o. Late T. Hrishikeshava Reddy, Aged about 53 years, R/o. Kapu Veedhi, Near Market, Jammalamadugu,^YSR Kadapa District

Sri. T. Amara Simha Reddy, S/o. Late T. Hrishikeshava Reddy, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Kapu Street, Near Market, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District

...Petitioners

AND

D Rukminamma, W/o. Gopa! Reddy, Aged about 79 years, R/o. D.No.25/117, Sanjeevanagar, Nandyal, Kurnool District 2. Sri T Narasimha Reddy, S/o. T. PuHa Reddy, Aged about 73 years, R/o. Kapu Veedhi, Near Market, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa^District

Sri G Madhukar Reddy, S/o. G. Suryanarayana Reddy, Aged about 55 years, R/o. Kapu Veedhi, Near Market, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District

Smt Aparna, W/o. Venkata Reddy, Aged about 36 years R/o. H.No.28/5/77/2, Anantapur

Kumari Maniswini, D/o. K. Venkata Reddy, Aged about 9 years. Natural Guardian, Aged about 36 years, R/o. H.No.28/5/77/2, Anantapur

Smt Padmini, W/o. Kiran Kumar Reddy, Aged about 36 years, R/o. Plot No.3, Manasa Apartments, Shakulal, Begumpet, Hyderabad

Kumari Leela, D/o. Kiran Kumar Reddy, Minor, Rep. by Mother, Natural Guardian,Smt. Padmini, W/o. Kiran Kumar Reddy, Aged about 36 years, R/o. Plot No.3, Manasa Apartments, Shakulal, Begumpet, Hyderabad

Smt Suneetha, W/o. Sreekanth Reddy, Aged about 38 years, R/o. D.No.41-418-A, Maruthi Nagar, Kadapa

Smt Rohini, , D/o. Subbarami Reddy, Aged about 41 years, R/o. Yerramuni Reddy Colony, Proddatur, Kadapa District

Smt Neeraja, W/o. Vamsidhar Reddy, Aged about 37 years, R/o. 4TH Floor, Teja Apartments, Opp Mahindra Show Room, Tekki, Nandyal, Kurnool District

Smt Madhuri, W/o. Dr. J. Ravindra Reddy, Aged about 46 years, R/o. Kapu Veedhi, Near Market, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District

Smt Bharathy, W/o. Eswar Reddy, Aged about 39 years, R/o. D.No.21-16 Air India Colony, Kohina, Santa Crux, Bombay

Smt Radha, , W/o. S. Venkata Krishna Reddy, Aged about 37 years, R/o. D.No. 12/2/716, Sai Nagar, Ananthapur

Smt T Uma, W/o. T. Vegendra Reddy, Aged about 45 years, R/o. Kapu Veedhi, Near Market, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District

Smt P Goury Reddy, W/o. P. Veera Reddy, Aged about 46 years, R/o. H.No.6-3-596/51, Venkataramana Colony, Khairatabad, Hyderabad

G Siva Prasad Reddy, S/o. Late Rami Reddy, Aged about 71 years, R/o. R/o. 4TH Floor, Teja Apartments, Opp Mahindra Show Room, Tekki, Nandyal, Kurnool District

...Respondents/Respondent 3 to 11 &13to18 lA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.21/2012 on the^fileofthe Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.

Counsel for the Petitioners: SURAGANI KRISHNA VAMSI

Counsel for the Respondents:

The Court made the following order:

'^4

APHC010319482025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

Tuesday, Eighth Day of July, Two Thousand and Twenty^Five

Present

The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi

Civil Revision Petition No.1518/2025

Between:

1 .Sri T.Hrishikeshava Reddy (Died),

2.Snnt Y.Kiranmayee, W/o Dr.Y.Krishna Mohan Reddy, aged about

61 years, R/o D.No.3/156, Byrmal street, Nandyal, Kurnool^District.

S.Smt.Ahalya, W/o Rajasekhar Reddy, aged about 37 years,^R/o

H.N0.4/127-B, Nehru road, Proddatur, Kadapa District.

4.Smt.T.Jaya Lakshmi, W/o late T.Hrishikeshava Reddy, aged about 71 years, R/o Kapu Veedhi, near Market, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District.

5.Sri T.Anantha Narasa Reddy, S/o Late T.Hrishikeshava Reddy,

aged about 53 years, R/o Kapu Veehi, near market,

Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District.

6.Sri T.Amara Simha Reddy, S/o late T.Hrishikeshava Reddy, aged about 50 years, R/o Kapu street, near market, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District.

...Petitioners / defendants / Defendants No.1,2,12,19^to21

And

1 .Smt.D.Rukminamma, W/o Gopal Reddy, aged about 79 years, R/o D.No.25/117, Sanjeevanagar, Nandyal, Kurnool District.

....Respondent / Petitioner / Plaintiff

2

BSB,J C.R.P.No.l518of2025

2.Sri T^Narasimha Reddy, S/o T.Pulla Reddy, aged_ about⁷³ years, R/o Kapu veedhi near market, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District.

S.Sri G.Madhukar Reddy, S/o G.Suryanarayana Reddy, aged about V veedhi, near market, Jammalamadugu, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.

4.Smt.Aparna, W/o Venkata Reddy, aged about 36 years. R/o H.No.28/5/77/2, Ananthapur.

S.Kumari Manswini, D/o K.Venkata Reddy, aged about 9 years Natural Guardian, aged about 36 years, R/o H.No 28/5/77/2 Ananthapur.

6.Smt.Padmini, W/ o Kiran Kumar Reddy, aged about 36 years, R/o Plot No.3, Manasa Apartments, Shakulal, Bequmpet Hyderabad. ’

Kumari Leela, D/o Kiran Kumar Reddy, minor, represented by mother natural guardian Smt.Padmini W/o Kiran Kumar Reddy,

aged about 36 years, R/o Plot No.3,Manasa Apartments, Shakulal Begumpet, Hyderabad.

8.Smt.Suneetha, W/o Sreekanth Reddy, aged about 38 years. R/o D.No.4-1-418-A, Maruthinagar, Kadapa.

9.Smt.Rohini, D/o Subbarami Reddy, aged about 41 years R/o Yerramuni Reddy Colony, Proddatur, Kadapa District.

lO.Smt.Neeraja, W/o Vamsidhar Reddy, aged about 37 years, R/o 4 floor, Teja apartments, opposite to Mahindra Show Room Tekki, Nandyal, Kurnool District.

11 .Smt.Madhuri, W/o D.J.Ravindra Reddy, aged about 46 years, R/o Kapu veedhi, near market, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa^District.

12.Smt.Bharathy, W/o Eswar Reddy, aged about 39 years, R/o D.No.21-16, Air India Colony, Kohina, Santa Crux, Bombay.

13.Smt.Radha, W/o S.Venkata Krishna Reddy, aged about³⁷ years. R/o D.No.12/2/716, Sai Nagar, Ananthapur.

3

BSB,J C.R.P.No.1518 of 2025

14.Smt.T.Uma, W/o T.Vegendra Reddy, aged about 45 years, R/o Kapu veedhi, near market, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa^District.

15.Smt.P.Goury reddy, W/o P.Veera Reddy, aged about 46 years R/o H.No.6-3-596/51, Venkataramana colony, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

16.G.Siva Prasad Reddy, S/o Late Rami Reddy, aged about 71 years, R/o 4*'^ floor, Teja apartments, opposite^toMahindra Show Room, Tekki, Nandyal, Kurnool District.

..Respondents / Respondents / Defendants 3 tol 1 &^13to18

Counsel for the petitioners:

I.Suragani Krishna Vamsi

Counsel for the respondents:

Nil

The Court made the following Order:

This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 21.04.2025 allowing I.A.No.280^of2024 in O.S.No.21 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Ill-Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal filed by the plaintiff under Order XXII, rule 4 and Order VI, rule 17 and Section151 of C.P.C to add the wife / respondent No.19, sons / R20 and 21 of the deceased 1®* defendant / 1®‘ respondent as defendants No.19 to 21 in the suit and making necessary amendments in the plaint.

The suit was filed to declare that the will dated 16.12.2011 making disposition of the land by G.Devalathamma if not true, valid

4

BSB,J C.R.P.No.l518of2025

or genuine and consequently to declare title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties and further direct defendants to deliver possession of the suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs.

Pending the suit, the defendant No.1 died on 10.01.2021 leaving behind his wife / respondent No.19, sons / respondents No.20 and 21 and a daughter respondent No.12 / defendant No.12 who is already on record.

The counter filed by some of the respondents bares a title that the counter was filed by respondents No.1, 2 and 4. Infact respondent No.1 died. Moreover, in the counter it was pleaded that the deceased defendant No.1 executed a registered gift deed dated 23.12.2020 gifting items Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint^‘A schedule to his daughter / defendant No.12 and he got the said properties through a registered Will dated 16.12.2011 which is under challenge in the suit. Therefore, these contesting respondents opposed impleading of respondent No.19 to 21 as they do not have any interest in the property.

However, the trial Court allowed the petition for impleading the proposed parties and making the consequential amendments to the plaint, on the ground that unless and until the proposed parties are brought on record as parties to the suit, it is not possible for the Court to adjudicate the lis between the parties.

The order shows that no prior notice was given to the proposed parties either to accept the case of the petitioner or the

5

BSB,J C.R.P.No.1518 of 2025

case pleaded in the counter. If at all the alleged gift by the respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.12 is accepted^bythe respondents No.19 to 21, they need not be brought on^recordasthey apparently have no interest in the property. However,^withoutprior service of notice to them, the case of neither party^{canbeaccepted.} The order of the trial Court further shows that it ignored the gift deed pleaded in the counter and mis-lead by the will which^isthesubject matter of the suit. For the purpose of impleading the^proposed parties, it is necessary to examine the contention regarding the registered gift deed to examine whether it is necessary^toimplead the proposed parties or not. It is important to note^{thatastheywere} not served with prior notice. Aggrieved by the order^{allowingthemto} be impleaded, they preferred the revision along with the other contesting respondents. Thus, it appears that they sail with the contesting respondents and thereby accepting the plea^ofregistered gift deed being executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.12. in these circumstances, without examining the crucial aspects, allowing the petition in a mechanical^manneristhe irregularity committed by the trial Court. Since, the^{trialCourtfailedto} no serve prior notice to the respondents No.19 to 21, they had chance to either oppose or support the relief claimed^{inthepetition.} Under all these circumstances, it is necessary to interfere^withthe impugned order. 7. In the result, civil revision petition is allowed setting^asidethe order dated 21.04.2025 in I.A.No.280 of 2024 in O.S.No.21 of 2012 on the file of the Court of Ill-Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. The trial Court is directed to permit the^{respondentsNo.19}

5).

6

BSB,J C.R.P.No.1518 of2025

to 21 to file their counter and thereafter hear and pass appropriate order afresh without being influenced by any of the observations by the order. It is also necessary to clarify the anomaly indicated in this order as to who filed the counter already on record. There shall be no orders as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any. pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.

Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SE OFFICER

To,

The III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.

One CC to Sri Suragani Krishna Vamsi, Advocate [OPUC

Two CD Copies

PNM

RAM

HIGH COURT

DATED;08/07/2025

ORDER CRP NO. 1518 OF 2025

^22JUL 2025 jS]

ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS