AKULA SUBBA RAO Vs. A RANGANADHAM
LAWS(APH)-2019-8-77
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 30,2019

Akula Subba Rao Appellant
VERSUS
A Ranganadham Respondents




JUDGEMENT

M. Venkata Ramana, J. - (1.)This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Court of learned VI Additional District Judge, Nellore, in I.A.No.378 of 2014 in O.S.No.216 of 2014 dated 30.04.2016.
(2.)The defendants are the petitioners.
(3.)The respondents as the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.378 of 2014 in O.S.No.216 of 2014 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice to permit them to amend the plaint as set out hereunder:
1) In the plaint after Para No.7, add the following as Para No.7-A:-

"7-A. The plaintiffs humbly submit that the Defendants got filed their written statement alleging that the 1st plaintiff has relinquished his share in the joint family property by executing a registered relinquishment deed bearing Doc.No.51/1964 of S.R.O., Nellore dated 25.07.1964 by receiving an amount of Rs.14,500/- towards his share and walked out of the family and thereafter the father of the 1st plaintiff got executed a registered WILL in favour of the 1st Defendant on 19.07.1989 under Doc.No.199/1989 and that subsequently also the 1st Plaintiff received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the 1st Defendant and his father and got executed a document on 19-07-1989 by admitting the alleged WILL executed by Late Surya Narayana and also his execution of the relinquishment deed etc. And that Item No.3 is the personal property of 2nd Defendant's wife Akula Surekha Rani, which she has sold away in the year 2013 are all absolutely false and are hereby denied by us. At any point of time, the 1st Plaintiff never went to the Registrar's Office and never executed any relinquishment deed in favour of the 1st Defendant and his father Late Surya Narayana. Hence, it is nothing but an impersonated document, forged and fabricated by the 1st Defendant with great foresight and without the knowledge of the 1st Plaintiff and till today, the Plaintiffs have no knowledge about the existence of those alleged documents with the Defendants. If those documents are in existence, certainly they ought to have replied for the notice issued by the Plaintiffs prior to the filing of the suit. Hence, the 1st Plaintiff intend to add the relief of cancellation of such document bearing No.51 of 1964 as the same is alleged to have been executed by him in favour of the 1st Defendant and his father. The father of the 1st Defendant during his life-time never disclosed about the said fact to the 1st Plaintiff at any point of time and likewise the execution of alleged registered WILL in favour of the 1st Defendant. Even the Defendants also never disclosed this fact. Hence, even the alleged WILL is also got fabricated by the 1st Defendant and his sons by representing the same with the father of the 1st Defendant or in any other mode. Hence, the alleged WILL, if any, is not binding on the rights of the Plaintiffs. Further, to the knowledge of the 1st Plaintiff, his father never executed any such WILL in favour of the 1st Defendant and hence the question of subsequent acknowledgement of the same through another document by the 1st Plaintiff does not arise at all. Thus, all the documents filed by the Defendants are nothing but created documents only with an intention to evade the legal share of the Plaintiffs. Likewise, the wife of the 2nd Defendant Akula Surekha Rani is only a housewife and even the Item No.3 of the plaint schedule seems to have been purchased on her name secretly by the 2nd Defendant with the funds of the joint family and as the Plaintiffs have been making demands to them, they sold away the same in the year 2013 to one Dr.Muppirala Lakshmi Ramesh, S/o.Rama Murthy of Nellore. Hence, the Plaintiffs have been filing another application to implead the said purchaser M.Lakshmi Ramesh and the wife of the 2nd Defendant A. Surekha Rani also as parties to the suit. The Plaintiffs also including the property situated at Gundlapalem Village as Item No.4 in the plaint schedule. As the plaintiffs came to know about the alleged relinquishment deed through the counter and written statement, their proposed relief of its cancellation is well within the limitation."

2) In Para No.9 of the Plaint, after the words "For purposes of Court Fees and Jurisdiction, this suit is valued as follows:-"the valuation assessment sub-para may be substituted as follows:-

"The value of the plaint schedule 1st item is valued at Rs.97,20,000/- value of the plaint schedule 2nd item is valued at Rs.3,75,000/- value of the plaint schedule 3rd item is valued at Rs.42,84,000/- and the value of the plaint schedule 4th item is valued at Rs.17,60,000/- and thus the total value of the four items of the plaint schedule property is Rs.1,61,39,600/- wherein the 1/2 share of the Plaintiffs comes to Rs.80,69,800/- wherein for the purposes of assessment of Court Fee is 3/4ths value therein comes to Rs.60,52,350/- and as the Plaintiffs are in constructive and joint possession along with the Defendants, fixed court fee of Rs.200/- is paid on the plaint U/s.34(2) of the A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act, 1956.

Relief of Cancellation of document bearing No:51/64 of S.R.O., Nellore dated 25-07-1964 is valued on its value of Rs.14,500/- and a Court Fee of Rs.1,056/- is paid on the plaint U/s.37(1)(a) of A.P.Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

Thus, the total Court Fee paid on the plaint is Rs.200/- + 1,056/- = 1,256/- and the same is deposited in the account of this Hon'ble Court in lieu of Court Fee Stamps."

(Already, Rs.200/- was deposited and the remaining Rs.1,056/- will be deposited after allowing this I.A. and the Plaintiffs undertake to deposit the same).

3) In the plaint, in the Relief Portion at Para No.10, after the relief (iii), add the following relief as "(iv)".

"(iv) Cancelling the document styled as registered relinquishment deed alleged to have been executed by the 1st Plaintiff in favour of the 1st Defendant and his father dated 25-07-1964 under Doc.No.51/1964 of S.R.O., Nellore as the same is the product of forgery brought into existence by the 1st Defendant".

4) In the Plaint Schedule, after Item No.3, the following may be added as "Item No.4".

"Item No.4: Sri Potti Sreeramulu Nellore Registration District, Stonehousepet Sub-Registration, Gundlapalem Village, Wet land in Old Survey No.94, New Survey No.213/1, an extent of Ac.1-76 cents as full extent. Market Value is Rs.17,60,000/-."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.