Dismissed¶¶52

Smt. G Anjamma, v. G Krishnamoorthy

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Jan 2026CRP/186/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; C.R.P. No. 186 of 2026; Justice Ninala Jayasurya; decided 23.01.2026; impleadment of Municipal Commissioner of Palamaner as 8th defendant in partition suit O.S.No.32 of 2016; Order 1 Rule 10 CPC; necessary and proper party; mutation in municipal records confers no title; Registered Will dated 14.05.1999 of Ankalamma; additional issue dated 29.08.2017; revision dismissed, no costs; counsel K Raghu Veer for petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Mere mutation of the names of defendants 2 & 3 in the municipal records in respect of the plaint schedule property does not, ipso facto, confer any absolute title over the plaint schedule property. ¶¶47

Smt. G Anjamma, Vs G Krishnamoorthy — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the order under revision warrants interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case? +1 more

¶¶42

Court's answer

No good grounds exist to interfere with the learned District Judge's order rejecting the impleadment application; the submissions of the petitioners' counsel merit no appreciation.

¶¶50

Ratio / Principle

Mere mutation of the names of defendants 2 & 3 in the municipal records in respect of the plaint schedule property does not, ipso facto, confer any absolute title over the plaint schedule property.

¶¶47

Key takeaways

Impleading the Municipal Commissioner of Palamaner would in no way help the petitioners/plaintiffs substantiate their case for partition of the suit schedule property.ratio¶¶47
The Municipal Commissioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party for the effective adjudication of the lis.ratio¶¶47
The suit is not against the proceedings/orders of the municipal authority but is a civil suit between private parties, one issue of which concerns the validity and effect of the Will dated 14.05.1999.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under revisional jurisdiction against order dated 21.11.2025 in I.A.No.28 of 2025 in O.S.No.32 of 2016 (IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor) dismissing application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead the Municipal Commissioner of Palamaner as 8th defendant in a partition suit. Held: (i) mere mutation of defendants 2 & 3's names in municipal records does not ipso facto confer absolute title over the plaint schedule property; (ii) impleading the Municipal Commissioner would not help the plaintiffs substantiate their partition case; (iii) the Commissioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party for effective adjudication of the lis, the suit being between private parties and not against municipal proceedings/orders; (iv) the plea that defendants may rely on municipal record entries to obtain favourable findings on the additional issue framed on 29.08.2017 regarding the Registered Will dated 14.05.1999 is misconceived. Civil Revision Petition dismissed, no costs.

[3209]

APHC010028802026

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

¶5

FRIDAY, T H E TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANU A RY TW O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 186 of 2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

SMT. G ANJAM M A, W/O. RAMAMOORTHY, D /O. LATE G JANAKIRAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/ O . D.No.1-175, MOSQUE STREET, OLD PET, PALAMANER TOWN A ND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶10

SMT.G.SUNITA, D / O. LATE G JANAKIRAMAIAH, W/ O . B RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 Y EARS, R/O. D.NO. 1-175, MOSQUE STREET, OLD PET, PALAMANE R TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOO R DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

G KRISHNAMOOR T HY, S/o. LATE G VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O. D . NO.91/77 (11/77), MBT ROAD, 0P P . IOC PETROL BUNK, PALMANE R TOWN AND MANDAL, CITTOOR D ISTRICT.

¶14

G LAKSHMIPATHI, S/O. G KRISHNAMURTHY, AG E D ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. D.N O .91/77 (11/77), MBT ROAD, 0PP. IOC PETROL BUNK, PALMANE R TOWN AND MANDAL, CITTOOR D ISTRICT.

¶15

G BALARAJU, S/O . G KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.91/77 ( 11/77), MBT ROAD 0PP. IOC P E TROL BUNK, PALMANER TOW N AND MANDAL, CITTOOR DISTRI C T.

¶16

V GUNAVATHI, W / O. V.RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 4 0 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.11-80 B, M B T ROAD, PALAMANER TOWN A ND MANDAL, CLITTOOR DISTRI C T.

¶17

¶18

G RATNAMMA, W/O. LATE KRISHNAMOORTHY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O. R/O. D,NO.91/77, MBT ROAD, 0PP. IOC PETROL BUNK, PALMANER TOWN AND MANDAL, CITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶19

V DHANALAKSHMI, W/O. V.JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. BUCHANNA KANDRIGA KUPPANNA PALLI, AL PURAM POST, GUDIPALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶20

SANTHA KUMARI, W/O. LATE ASHOK, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. BUCHANNA KANDRIGA KUPPANNA PALLI, AL PURAM POST, GUDIPALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶21

THE COMMISSIONER PALAMANERU MUNICIPALITY, PALAMANER TOWN AND POST, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶24

1.Mr.K RAGHU VEER

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

-None-

¶27

¶28

The Court made the following Order:

¶29

The present Revision is filed against the orders dated 21.11.2025 in I.A.No.28 of 2025 in O.S.No.32 of 2016 on the file of the Court of IX Additional District Judge, Chittoor.

¶30

The petitioners filed the said suit against the 1^st respondent and others for partition of the suit schedule properties in two equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiffs and to render accounts for the income received from the subject property.

¶31

The defendants filed written statements and contesting the suit. The 3^rd defendant filed an additional written statement inter alia stating that prior to the death of the 1^st defendant, the 1^st defendant’s father one Mr.G.Venkatappa, purchased the plaint schedule property, that he died intestate leaving behind him the 1^st defendant and late Ankalamma, wife of late Venkatappa etc., and that prior to her death, she executed a Registered Will dated 14.05.1999 bequeathing all her properties in favour of the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants in the suit, that they succeeded to the 1/8^th share of Ankalamma in Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property as per the Registered Will executed by late Ankalamma.

¶32

The learned Trial Court formulated the issues for trial, including the additional issue on 29.08.2017 as to “Whether the Will dated 14.05.1999 executed by the said Ankalamma in favour of defendants 2 and 3 is true, valid, genuine and acted upon?”

¶33

¶34

Alleging that the Municipal Commissioner of Palamaner has acted malafide to help the defendants 2 & 3, changed the Municipal records in respect of the plaint schedule house in the names of defendants 2 & 3, the petitioners / plaintiffs filed the above said I.A., seeking to implead the Municipal Commissioner of Palamaner as 8^th defendant in the suit.

¶35

The proposed 8^th respondent filed a counter and opposed the application, inter alia contending that the Municipal Commissioner is a formal party who acted only in discharge of statutory duty and has no interest, stake or connection with the subject matter of the suit and that the Municipal Authority is being dragged into unnecessary litigation.

¶36

The learned District Judge, after considering the matter, dismissed the I.A., against which the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the order under challenge is not sustainable as the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the scope of Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure(for short ‘CPC’) in the correct perspective. He submits that the proposed respondent is a proper and necessary party, since he mutated the names of defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the municipal records, despite a legal notice got issued by the petitioners / plaintiffs. He also submits that the application in question was filed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings in respect of the plaint schedule property and the learned Trial Court, erred in not appreciating that by allowing the above mentioned I.A., no prejudice would be caused to the defendants 2 &

¶38

¶39

Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to allow the

¶40

Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order.

¶41

This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.

¶42

On an appreciation of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the point that arises for consideration by this Court is Whether in the order under Revision warrants interference by this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case?

¶43

At the outset, it may be pertinent to mention that the relevant facts leading to the filing of the above mentioned I.A., have already been set out supra and for the sake of brevity, the same are not reiterated. The suit instituted by the petitioners / plaintiffs is for partition of the plaint schedule properties. In the Additional Written Statement filed by 3^rd defendant in the suit, a plea with regard to execution of a Registered Will dated 14.05.1999, stated to be executed in favour of the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants in respect of the suit schedule properties, was taken. The learned District Judge has framed an issue as to Whether the said Will executed in favour of the defendants 2 & 3 is true, valid, genuine etc., and the correctness or otherwise of the same will be examined and decided on the basis of the evidence that may be adduced by the parties to the suit. Be that as it may.

¶44

The petitioners / plaintiffs on the premise that the additional issue framed on 29.08.2017 and the findings on the same will have effect in giving

¶45

¶46

finding on the other issues, sought to implead the Municipal Commissioner as defendant No.8 in the suit.

¶47

In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., they inter alia stated that the Municipal Commissioner of Palamaner has acted malafide to help the defendants 2 & 3 even though legal notices were issued and acknowledged by him and that he cannot act to create evidence in favour of defendants 2 & 3, overlooking the legal objections raised. While it is to be noted that mere mutation of the names of the defendants 2 & 3 in the municipal records in respect of the plaint schedule property, ipso facto does not confer any absolute title over the plaint schedule property, impleading of the Municipal Commissioner of Palamaner, no way help the petitioners / plaintiffs to substantiate their case for partition of the suit schedule property. In fact, he is neither a necessary nor a proper party for the effective adjudication of the lis . As rightly held by the learned District Judge, the subject matter suit is not against the proceedings / orders of the municipal authority, but a civil suit between private parties, wherein one of the issues is with regard to validity and the effect of Will dated 14.05.1999 on the basis of which, the defendants 2 & 3 are claiming absolute rights to the exclusion of petitioners / plaintiffs. The plea of the petitioners / plaintiffs to the effect that the defendants may rely on the entries in the municipal records and get favourable findings on additional issue, framed on 29.08.2017, is misconceived.

¶48

On a due consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court see no reason to interfere with the well

¶49

¶50

articulated order of the learned District Judge. Cogent reasons have been assigned for rejecting the application in question and there are no good grounds to interfere with the order under revision. Therefore, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners merits no appreciation.

¶51

Accordingly, the point is answered.

¶52