Dismissed

Ponangi Surya Subrahmanyam, v. Y.S.V. Ramana Sarojini

Telangana HC12 Dec 2014CRP/3128/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Civil Revision Petition challenging a dismissal regarding the filing of a belated additional written statement in a partition suit is dismissed. The Court held that raising an inconsistent plea about the father's death date late in the trial renders the petition non-maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioners stayed from filing additional written statement.

Ponangi Surya Subrahmanyam, Vs Y.S.V. Ramana Sarojini — Partition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶2

C.R.P.No.3128 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 28.07.2014 passed in I.A.No.577 of 2013 in O.S.No.134 of 2009 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari District.

¶5

The petitioners are the defendants and the respondents 1 to 6 are the plaintiffs.

¶6

The respondents-plaintiffs instituted O.S.No.134 of 2009 against the petitionersdefendants, who are none other than the brothers and sisters of the plaintiffs, for partition in regard to the property of their parents, who died intestate.

¶7

The petitioners-defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement contending inter alia that their father executed a Will on 15.05.1999 in their favour and they are claiming the properties by virtue of the said Will.

¶8

During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A17 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DW1 was cross-examined and Ex.D1 was marked.

¶9

At that stage, the petitioners-defendants filed a

¶10

petition under Order 8, Rule 9 and Section 151 CPC seeking to receive the additional written statement. Their contention is that the Amended Succession Act is not applicable which plea they have not specifically taken and for furnishing better particulars of the stand already taken, filing additional written statement became necessary and that there is no bar under amended CPC for filing such additional statement.

¶11

The respondents-plaintiffs contended that when the learned counsel engaged by the defendants suffered illness and subsequently died, the defendants sought several adjournments and now the present petition is filed only to protract the trial of the suit.

¶12

The Court below after hearing the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and having gone through the entire material placed before it, dismissed the petition.

¶13

Admittedly, the additional written statement is sought to be filed at a belated stage. In the written statement, the defendants have not specifically denied the fact that their father died on 28.01.2000. Therefore, if the defendants take the plea that their father died long prior to the year 2000 in the

¶14

additional written statement, it would be inconsistent with the original written statement. The Court below while placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in

¶15

Sheik Asha and another vs Sheik Moulaali^[1] , and observing that the present petition is not maintainable with inconsistent plea to the one taken in the earlier written statement, rightly dismissed the petition. The order impugned passed by the Court below requires no interference.

¶16

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶17

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision petition shall stand closed.

¶18

_________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 11^th December, 2014 rkk

¶19

[1] 2005 (5) ALD 780

Ponangi Surya Subrahmanyam, v. Y.S.V. Ramana Sarojini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponangi Surya Subrahmanyam, v. Y.S.V. Ramana Sarojini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Yesudas, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Y.a.Ready, Vs a.P.State Road Transport Corporation

D. Sanjeeva Rao Vs The Executive Engineer Rajendranagar Circle -Vi

P.V.S. Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, Vs A.P. State Road Transport Corporation

Yeleti Venkata Raju Vs Karri Vijay Kumar Reddy

Smt.Bhimavarapu Kameswari Vs Smt.Bhimavarapu Venkata Lakshmi