Allowed

Pinnasi Jogamma (died) v. Singupalli Narayana

Telangana HC16 Aug 2011CRP/4924/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition against an order dismissing an application by a testamentary legatee to amend a plaint for a declaration of title. The Court held that the legatee, having stepped into the deceased plaintiff's shoes, could file the amendment, and set aside the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside; the application for amendment of plaint was allowed; the Court below was directed to dispose of the Original Suit.

Pinnasi Jogamma (died) Vs Singupalli Narayana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4924 of 2009

¶3

Dated: - 1 6 th August 2011

¶4

Between:Pinnasi Jogamma (died) Rep by LR

¶5

...Petitioners

¶6

AND

¶7

Singupalli Narayana and another

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4924 of 2009

¶10

ORDER:-

¶11

This revision is directed against order dated 09.03.2009 passed in I.A.No.172 of 2008 by the Junior Civil Judge, Palasa, Srikakulam District.

¶12

2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants before the Court below and they will be hereinafter referred to as per their array before the Court below for the sake of convenience.

¶13

3. Initially, the Original Suit in O.S.No.26 of 2000 was filed by the first plaintiff – Pinnasi Jogamma who subsequently died and the second plaintiff has been brought on record as a testamentary legatee of the deceased first plaintiff as per the orders dated 03.01.2006 passed in I.A.No.28 of 2001. It appears that the defendants have disputed the title of the first plaintiff to the suit schedule property. In view of the same, the second plaintiff now filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint by adding the relief of declaration of title and consequential amendments. By order dated 09.03.2009, the Court below, mainly observing that it is for the first plaintiff who ought to

¶14

have filed such an application and that the second plaintiff, who is claiming the title through the first plaintiff, cannot file such an application, dismissed the I.A., which is being impugned by the plaintiffs in this revision.

¶15

4. Heard both the learned counsel on

¶16

record.

¶17

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the view taken by Court that the second plaintiff, who is claiming the title through the deceased first plaintiff, cannot file an application seeking amendment of the plaint by adding the relief of declaration of title and consequential amendments is erroneous.

¶18

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and submits that there is no need interfere with the same.

¶19

In view of the above rival claims, the only point that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the impugned order is sustainable.

¶20

7. The facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, the first plaintiff filed the Original Suit for injunction and the defendants filed written statement and denied the title of the first plaintiff. It is also not in dispute that the first plaintiff subsequently died and the second plaintiff came on record as the testamentary

¶21

legatee of the deceased first plaintiff basing on the Will said to have been executed by the first plaintiff. Thus, for all practical purposes, the second plaintiff steps into the shoes of the deceased first plaintiff. Admittedly, now the second plaintiff has been continuing the proceedings by contesting the matter and is claiming the title through the deceased first plaintiff only. In view of the same, it is clear that the second plaintiff, who stepped into the shoes of the deceased first plaintiff and who is continuing the litigation, can seek the amendment of plaint and declaration of title of the first plaintiff when her title has been disputed by the defendants. In view of the same, the impugned order cannot sustain and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶22

8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order. Consequently, the I.A. filed by the second plaintiff before the Court below, being I.A.No.172 of 2008, stands allowed. The Court below is directed to dispose of the Original Suit as early as possible. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

_______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar

¶24

16^th August, 2011 Bvv

Pinnasi Jogamma (died) v. Singupalli Narayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pinnasi Jogamma (died) v. Singupalli Narayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neyyila Bhaskara Rao Vs Neyyila Mohana Rao

Pukkala Syamasundara Rao, Vs Sana Malathi Devi

Shaik Mahmood Ahmed Vs Ghulam Mahmood Siddiqui

Varanasi Srinivasa Rao Vs Malla Chalapati Rao

B.Sakku Bai Karimngara Vs S.B.H Karimnagar

The Grampanchayat Narsannapeta Vs B. Srinivasa Rao