Peddireddy Ratnamala Vs Mulagala Pushpalata @ Peddireddy Pushpalatha

PEDDIREDDY RATNAMALA, W/O. PULI SRINIVASA RAO, D/O. LATE PEDDIREDDY YUGANDHARA RAO, AGED 56 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O. PLOT NO.33-37, FLAT NO.206, DR. SABBARAO COLONY, JPB APARTMENTS, WEST MARREDPALLI, SECUNDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

MULAGALA PUSHPALATA PEDDIREDDY PUSHPALATHA, W/O. MULAGALA PARDHASARATHI, D/O. LATE PEDDIREDDY YUGANDHARA RAO, AGED 51 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O. FLAT NO.803, ROYAL PAVILION APARTMENT, 0PP. TO BIG BAZAR, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD.

¶13

MIRIYALA GOPINATH, S/O. MIRIYALA NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 38 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.2-81, CHANUBANDA VILLAGE, CHATRAI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT-521214.

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

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 set aside the order dated 06.10.2025 in I.A.No.514 of 2023 in O.S.No.18 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior

¶16

2

¶17

Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru, and consequently, allow I.A.No.514 of 2023 in O.S.No.18 of 2020, with costs throughout, in the interest of justice.

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶19

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 O.S.No.18 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru pending disposal of the C.R.P. in the interest of justice and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶21

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 May be pleased to vacate the stay granted vide order dated 04.12.2025 in I.A. No. 1 of 2025 in C.R.P. No. 3430 of 2025, and to pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.P L NARASIMHA RAO

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.VENKAT SAILENDRA G

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Petitioner/plaintiff in I.A.No.514/2023 in O.S.No.18/2020 filed the above revision against the order dated 06.10.2025 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru.

¶30

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the plaintiff. She filed an I.A. under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order VI rule 17 r/w section 151 CPC praying the Court to implead the proposed 2^nd defendant as defendant to the suit and to amend the plaint by inserting the following paragraph:

¶31

“ After filing the suit, for the first time in the month of July, 2023 the plaintiff came to know that the 1^st defendant in collusion with the 2^nd defendant brought into existence of a sham and nominal sale deed dated. 10-01-2020 in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property as if such property was sold to the 2^nd defendant by the 1^st defendant. So also for the first time the plaintiff came to know through the recitals of such sham and nominal sale deed dated 10-01-2020 that the 1^st defendant during the life time of her father brought into existence of a sham and nominal registered gift settlement deed dated 24-08-2009 as if her father Yugandhara Rao gifted such item No.1 of plaint schedule to the defendant. Here the fact remains that the item No.1 of plaint schedule is not self-acquired property of father of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff is not alone entitled to alienate the item No.1 of suit schedule property as if it is his self-acquired. On this ground the above so called registered settlement deed dated 24-08-2009 is not at all a gift settlement deed in the eye of law and the same is not valid under law. More particularly the said gift settlement deed no way binds the plaintiff's valuable rights over such item No.1 of plaint schedule. So also the 1^st defendant is not entitled to alienate the item No.1 of plaint schedule to the 2^nd defendant under the alleged sale deed dated 10-01-2020 as she does not acquire any valid rights or title over such property by virtue of her alleged gift settlement deed, vide document No.2094/2009 of SRO, Vatluru. So also the 2 defendant did not acquire any valid rights or title over item No.1 of plaint schedule by virtue of his alleged sale deed vide document No.76/2020 of SRO Vatluru. As such the plaintiff is still entitled to get her half share in such item No.1 of plaint schedule properties.”

¶32

4

¶33

Considering the I.A. on merits, the trial Court has rightly pointed out with regard to filing of application under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 CPC in one I.A. As per Rule 55 of Civil Rules of Practice, it is not permissible. As far as the amendment is concerned, on perusal of the amendment it clearly discloses the said amendment will change the nature of the suit and as far as impleading the proposed 2^nd defendant is also contrary to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶34

In fact the trial Court has rightly considered, though it has not been dismissed on the ground of latches but the fact remains that the suit was filed in the year 2020 and written statement was filed by the respondent/defendant on 30.12.2020. But this I.A. for amendment was filed on 10.7.2023. As the learned counsel for the respondent has rightly pointed out that after filing the written statement, two and half years thereafter the present I.A. has been filed. As the amendment is rejected not on the ground of latches, this Court is also not inclined to consider it. But on perusal of the amendment, no doubt the said amendment is filed after filing the written statement and the said amendment change the nature. Hence the trial Court has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner.

¶35

Hence this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the trial Court and accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. At the

¶36

5

¶37

interest of justice and at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the dismissal of this Civil Revision Petition will not preclude the petitioner to file a separate suit. No costs.

¶38

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall

¶39

stand closed.

¶40

__________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶41

23.01.2026 RD

¶42

6

¶43

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH