GULLIPALLI SRINIVASA RAO Vs. KILAPARTHI ANANTHALAKSHMI
LAWS(APH)-2019-10-20
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on October 21,2019

Gullipalli Srinivasa Rao Appellant
VERSUS
Kilaparthi Ananthalakshmi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

U Durga Prasad Rao, J. - (1.)These three Civil Revision Petitions are filed aggrieved by the common order, dated 19.02.2019, passed in IA Nos.34, 35 and 36 of 2019 in OS No.70 of 2018 by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram (for short, 'the trial Court') dismissing IA Nos.34, 35 and 36 of 2019 filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs respectively. The plaintiffs filed the aforesaid 3 IAs i.e., IA No.34 of 2019 under Section 151 CPC to reopen the suit to adduce evidence on behalf of the petitioners/plaintiffs, IA No.35 of 2019 under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall PW.2 for further evidence, and IA No.36 of 2019 under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC to grant leave to produce the cancellation deed, dated 16.02.2008, and receive the same as evidence.
(2.)By the aforesaid common order, the trial Court dismissed all the three petitions. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit OS No.70 of 2008 seeking cancellation of the gift deed, dated 29.06.1990, vide document No.1471 of 1990. The said gift deed was executed by the deceased 1st plaintiff in favour of the respondent/defendant. It is pleaded in the plaint that the respondent/defendant obtained the said document with the help of her father by playing fraud, coercion, and undue influence and by taking advantage of the illiteracy of the 1st plaintiff. The respondent/defendant in her turn filed suit OS No.40 of 2008 and both the suits were clubbed together and common evidence was recorded in OS No.70 of 2008.
(3.)While so, the aforesaid three petitions were filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs alleging that the 1st plaintiff executed gift deed dated 29.06.1990 in favour of respondent/defendant but subsequently when the respondent/defendant did not comply the wish and will of the 1st plaintiff, she cancelled the gift deed, dated 29.06.1990, through the registered document 477 of 2008, dated 16.02.2008. The said original document was traced after completion of the evidence of 2nd plaintiff. The recitals of the said document would show that even though the gift deed was executed, delivery was not given by the 1st plaintiff/petitioner to the respondent/defendant. The said document is very much important to prove the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs and the same was not traced during the time of trial. On these pleas, the impugned three petitions were filed to reopen the evidence, to recall PW.2, and receive the cancellation deed, dated 16.02.2008. The respondent/defendant opposed the said petition.
;


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