ORDER:

Defendant Nos.5 and 6 in the suit filed the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by order, dated 10.03.2022 passed in I.A.No.39 of 2022 in O.S.No.52 of 2009 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Piler.

2. Respondent herein being the plaintiff filed O.S.No.52 of 2009 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Piler, to declare that plaintiff has got right and title over 3/4th share in ‘A’ schedule properties and half share in ‘B’ schedule properties and to partition and deliver possession of the same etc.

3. In the plaint, plaintiff contended inter alia that she is wife of the deceased and defendant No.1 in the suit is mother of deceased Subramanyam Achari; that ‘A’ schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of Subramanyam Achari and his son Nagendra; that both are having half share; that Nagendra, died intestate, unmarried, on 18.05.1994 leaving behind him the plaintiff as sole legal heir; that plaintiff succeeded to his half share in ‘A’ schedule properties; that Subramanyam Achari, husband of the plaintiff died intestate on 24.07.1996 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in the suit as his legal heirs; thus, plaintiff got 3/4th share in ‘A’ schedule property and that defendant No.1 is entitled for remaining 1/4th share of ‘A’ schedule properties; that ‘B’ schedule properties are self acquired properties of deceased Subramanyam Achari and hence, both defendant No.1 and plaintiff are entitled to half share; that defendant No.1 got issued legal notice claiming entire property and denied share to the respondent/plaintiff under Will, dated 28.02.1992 said to have been executed by deceased Subramanyam Achari; that Subramanyam Achari filed O.P.No.17 of 1989 and obtained ex parte decree of divorce behind the back of the plaintiff; that plaintiff initiated steps to get the decree set aside and the same is pending; that item No.1 of ‘B’ schedule property is in the custody of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and item No.2 is in the custody of defendant No.4; that defendant No.1 is trying to claim the entire amounts lying with other defendants. Hence, suit was filed.

4. The suit is contested by defendant No.1 by filing written statement. It was contended inter alia that Subramanyam Achari during his life time executed registered Will on 28.02.1992 bequeathing the properties to defendant No.1 (life interest) and thereafter vested the same in favour of G. Sreenivasulu; that Subramanyam Achari filed OP No.17 of 1989 for divorce and since plaintiff did not contest the same, ex parte decree was passed on 21.09.1992; that plaintiff filed I.A.No.849 of 1994 to set aside the ex parte decree and later it was transferred to Piler and it was renumbered as I.A.No.408 of 1996; that since plaintiff did not prosecute, it was dismissed on 23.08.1996; that after long lapse of time, after the death of Subramanyam Achari, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.171 of 1997 to condone delay in filing petition to set aside the dismissal order passed in I.A.No.408 of 1996 and eventually prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

5. With the above pleadings, the parties went to trial. Pending the suit, the revision petitioners impleaded themselves as defendant Nos.5 and 6 by filing I.A.No.385 of 2017. Later they filed additional written statement. Pending the suit defendant No.1 died on 14.12.2018. I.A.No.64 of 2019 was filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos.5 and 6 to recognize them as legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.1 and the same was allowed on 22.04.2019.

6. Defendant No.6 filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination on 21.07.2017. He was cross-examined and eventually evidence was closed on 23.11.2021. After completion of arguments on behalf of plaintiff on 06.12.2021, the matter underwent three to four adjournments for defendants’ arguments. As per the record, court below also imposed conditions. At that point of time, defendant Nos. 5 and 6 filed (1) I.A.No.35 of 2022 under Or