ORDER

Defendant No.1 filed the above revision against the order dated 12.10.2022 in I.A.No.208 of 2022 in O.S.No.403 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

2. Suit O.S.No.403 of 2011 was filed by the plaintiff against the revision petitioner (Defendant No.1) and P. Muralidhar (Defendant No.2) seeking partition of the schedule properties.

3. (a) The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaint schedule property was allotted to the share of the father of the plaintiff under registered partition dated 16.08.1971. The plaintiff’s marriage was performed with his maternal uncle. The father of the plaintiff died intestate in 1977 leaving behind B.Rajamma (wife/plaintiff’s daughter and 1st defendant’s daughter). Wife and two daughters of P. Govinda Naidu are entitled to 1/3rd share each. The Husband of the plaintiff got performed marriage of the defendant No.1 in the year 1982.

(b) The mother of the plaintiff B. Rajamma, out of love and affection, has gifted 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties to defendant No.2, son of the plaintiff and delivered undivided joint possession to him under the registered gift settlement deed dated 31.03.2001. The mother of the plaintiff also sells away meagre extent to the husband of the plaintiff for valid consideration to discharge the joint family debt borrowed for the construction of R.C.C. roofed building. Smt B. Rajamma died on 31.04.2011. Plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 21.01.2011 to the plaintiff claiming her 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties. However, defendant No.1 is not coming forward for physical division and hence the suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking partition of the suit schedule properties.

4. Defendant No.1, initially, was set ex-parte. Later, defendant No.1 filed petition to set ex parte order and it was allowed and defendant No.1 filed written statement. In the written statement, it was contended that defendant No.2 is a collusive party with the plaintiff. The registered gift deed dated 31.03.2001 in favour of the defendant No.2 and registered sale deed dated 31.03.2001 in favour of the plaintiff are bogus, false, fictitious documents. B. Rajamma never executed any gift deed in favour of defendant No.2 and also sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of her share. Defendant No.1 has exclusively constructed a building in the plaint schedule by spending more than Rs.3,00,000/-. B. Rajamma and plaintiff undertook to share the cost of construction by paying 50% expenditure. However, they failed to do so. Eventually, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. Defendant No.2 filed separate written statement.

5. Pending the suit, defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.208 of 2022 under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC seeking permission to file Additional written statement. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended that at the time of filing of written statement, she could not gather material particulars regarding plaint schedule item and also documents fraudulently got executed in the name of defendant No.2. The father of defendant No.2 filed I.A.No.57 of 2022 to recognize as power of attorney of the defendant No.2 and he played dual role on behalf of the plaintiff and also as power of attorney of the defendant No.2. By virtue of change of law, defendant No.1 is entitled to ‰ share in the plaint schedule and written statement schedule properties. Some items of ancestral properties are not included in the plaint schedule. The properties covered by the registered gift deed and registered sale deed dated 31.03.2001 are omitted from the plaint schedule and hence, prays to receive Additional written statement.

6. Counter was filed by the plaintiff and opposed the application. Trail court by order dated 12.10.2022 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.

7. Heard Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. V. Disha Chowdary, learned counsel appearing for respondent