Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3) Civil Revision Petition No.1359 of 2023 is filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 10.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.03 of 2022 in O.S.No.201 of 2014 by the VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, whereby, the Trial Court dismissed the said interlocutory application filed Under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ―C.P.C.‖) to permit the petitioners/plaintiffs to amend the plaint.

VS,J crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023

4) Since the petitioners and the respondents in both the revision petitions are one and the same and the issue involved in these revisions is identical, I find that it is appropriate to decide these revision petitions by way of a common order by taking C.R.P.No.1358 of 2023 as lead petition.

5) It is the case of the petitioners that One G.Kodandapani and G.Janakamma are their grandparents. Their grandfather Kodandapani was the owner of 152 Ankanams and their grandmother G.Janakamma was the owner of 120 Ankanams and it is her Stridhana property. However, their grandparents blessed with two sons and four daughters. As per the Hindu law, the said 6 persons are entitled to 1/6th share each in the petitioners grandmother's property of 120 Ankanams. As far as their ancestral property of 152 Ankanams which was in the possession of their grandfather initially, he along with his two sons are entitled to 1/3rd share each is to be partitioned amongst six children. After the death of the grandparents of the petitioners, their father who is the eldest son used to look after the affairs of the entire family.

6) As things stood thus, one of the daughters filed suit O.S.No.128 of 1975 seeking partition for her 1/6th share. The said suit was finally decreed allotting 1/6th share to her. Out of the remaining 5 members, one son and two daughters died. Accordingly, father of the petitioners and one daughter are became absolute owners of the said property. Out of them, daughter after marriage blessed with 8 children. As she is living separately in her matrimonial home, she is not at all in possession and enjoyment of VS,J crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023 the property. Therefore, the petitioners - plaintiffs are in possession of the property. The petitioners have leased out the property to one Pokala Sadasivaiah and used to collect rents and paying taxes. When respondent Nos.3 to 7 raised a dispute with to the property, the said 3rd party Pokala Sadasivaiah filed suit O.S.No.57 of 2003 to determine the persons entitled to receive the usufruct and to have possession over the property, in which the petitioners were arrayed as party defendants.

8) At that stage, the petitioners - plaintiffs were constrained to file suit O.SNo.227 of 2014 seeking cancellation of sale deeds dated 27.11.2009, dated 27.11.2009 (subject matter of C.R.P.No.1357 of 2023), dated 18.01.2009 (subject matter of C.R.P.No.1359 of 2023), wherein plaintiffs evidence was completed by 2020. After completion of plaintiffs' evidence, the petitioners have identified that the respondents-defendants being ill-advised apart from creating 3rd party rights had also could able to make the plaintiff who got filed the inter-leader suit to become hostile, in order to see the decree VS,J crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023 passed in the said inter-pleader suit unenforceable and un- executable, got the buildings demolished and went on to execute the settlement deeds etc.