Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 5502
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRSENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 434 OF 2023 Between:
1. SHANKAR REDDY S/o.Late Rami Reddy Aged about 58 years R/o.4034, Meadow Green Dr.Sylvania, OH-43560-3899 United States of America ...PETITIONER(S)
AND:
1. SMT.SUMITRA PERUGU REDDY W/o.P.Gopal Reddy Aged about 68 years, R/o.H.No.110 Champions Club Court, Alpharita Georgia - 30004, U.S.A.
2. Sri P.Srinivas Reddy S/o.Sri P.Gopal Reddy Aged about 42 years, R/o.H.No.110 Champions Club Court, Alpharita Georgia - 30004, U.S.A.
3. Smt.Neelima Reddy D/o.P.Gopal Reddy, aged 40 years R/o.H.No.110 Champions Club Court, Alpharita Georgia - 30004, U.S.A.
(Rep.by their General Power of Attorney Holder Bhavanam Venkateswara Reddy S/o.B.Pulla Reddy, aged about 55 years R/o.H.No.51-917-E2, Chellavari Street Kurnool, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh
4. Smt.Leelavati W/o.Ram Reddy Aged major Occ.Housewife R/o.55, 1St Street, Unit 108, Patham New York - 10803, U.S.A.
5. Byreddy Prabhavathamma W/o.Not known to the petitioner Aged major, R/o.H.No.49/1-63-A R/o.11, Danberry Lane, Bodge Water New Jersy - 08807, U.S.A.
6. Kundalal Bhandaris S/o.Late Chogmalji Bhandari Aged about 65 years, R/o.H.No.20/61 Bandimetta, Kurnool, Kurnool District Andhra Pradesh
7. Ashok Kumar Bhandari S/o.Late Chogmalji Bhandari Aged 47 years, R/o.H.No.19/303 Bandimetta, Kurnool, Kurnool District Andhra Pradesh
8. Bojraj Bhandari S/o.Late Rathan Chand Bhandari Aged about 60 years, R/o.H.No.40/580-A-G4 S.V.Heights, Club Road, Kurnool Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh
9. Deepak Bhandari S/o.Late Rathan Chand Bhandari Aged 55 years, R/o.H.No.1592, 36th Cross A Main 4th T.Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru Karnataka State.
10. Narendra Kumar Bhandari S/o.Late Rathan Chand Bhandari Aged about 52 years, R/o.H.No.18/138A Nehru Road, Kurnool, Kurnool District Andhra Pradesh.
(Respondent Nos.4 to ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner(s): S.NAGESWARAREDDY Counsel for the Respondents: VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.434 of 2023 Between:
Shankar Reddy, S/o Late Rami Reddy, aged about 58 years, R/o 4034, Meadow Green, Dr. Sylvania, OH – 43560-3899, United States of America.
… Petitioner/Defendant No.1 And Sumitra Perugu Reddy, W/o P. Gopal Reddy, age about 68 years, R/o H.No.110, Champions Club Court , Alpharita, Georgia – 30004, U.S.A. and two others represented by their General Power of Attorney Holder Bhavanam Venkateswara Reddy, S/o B. Pulla Reddy, aged about 55 years, Kurnool, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.
… Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Plaintiffs Leelavati, W/o Ram Reddy, aged major, Occ: Housewife, R/o 55, 1st Street, Unit 108, Patham, New York – 10803, USA and others Respondent Nos.4 to 10 are not necessary parties.
… Respondent Nos.4 to 10/
Defendant Nos.2 to 8 Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S. Nageswar Reddy Counsel for respondents : Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha
ORDER
Defendant No.1, in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 06.01.2023 in I.A.No.135 of 2022 in Page 2 of 9 SRS,J O.S.No.36 of 2016 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Kurnool.
2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 represented by their GPA holder filed suit O.S.No.36 of 2016 seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties.
3. As can be seen, plaint was signed by plaintiff No.1 as also the GPA holder. Plaint was presented on 10.07.2016 and was filed on 12.05.2016. Each of the plaintiffs executed separate GPA in favour of Sri Bhavanam Venkteswara Reddy. Along with the plaint, plaintiff No.1 filed affidavit regarding execution of GPA and its subsistence in favour of Bhavanam Venkteswara Reddy. Bhavanam Venkteswara Reddy also filed affidavit with regard to execution of GPA, in the year 2016 itself.
4. In the written statement, defendants specifically contended that item No.2 of the schedule property was not mentioned in GPA executed by the plaintiffs in favour of GPA holder.
5. Trial in the suit was commenced. On behalf of plaintiffs plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW1 besides examining other witnesses. Suit is coming up for further evidence of Page 3 of 9 SRS,J defendants. At that juncture, I.A.No.135 of 2022 is filed under Order III Rule 2 read with Rules 32 and 33 of Civil Rules of Practice and Section 151 of CPC to permit GPA holder to represent plaintiffs by satisfying earlier actions of power of attorney holder.
6. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended that in GPA given by the plaintiffs to the power of attorney holder, item No.2 of the schedule property was not mentioned. PW1 i.e. plaintiff No.1 during evidence asserted that authorization was given to the GPA holder to prosecute the case by way of GPA. Non-mentioning of item No.2 in GPA is due to mistake. Therefore, plaintiffs sent fresh GPA mentioning both plaint schedule properties and hence I.A.
was filed.
7. Respondents filed counter and opposed the application. 8. Trial Court, by order, dated 06.01.2023 allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is filed.
9. Heard learned counsel on either side.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that suit was instituted by the GPA Holder without proper Page 4 of 9 SRS,J authorization. He would also point out that plaint was signed in the month of February, 2016. However, GPA was executed by the plaintiffs in favour of GPA Holder in March, 2016. He would also point out that GPA holder did not seek permission before filing the suit.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would contend that plaintiff No.1 signed plaint along with GPA holder and presented plaint before the Court. He would also contend that as per Order VI Rule 15, every pleading shall be verified at the foot by the party or by any of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case. Singing the plaint by plaintiff No.1 satisfies the requirement. Learned counsel for the respondents would also submit that in fact GPA dated 28.03.2016 would reflect that GPA holder is authorized to file suit for partition and separate share of property consisting of house bearing No.51-1G2, 51/1G, 51/163 laid in survey No.419/B1, Ward No.51 of Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool and plot NO.5, laid in Sy.No.494/B, 483/B, Pyki house bearing No.80/11/80/5 of Kallur and house bearing No.80/11/80/5 constructed in plot No.5 laid in survey No.494/B, 483/B of Kallur and other Page 5 of 9 SRS,J joint family properties. Thus, learned counsel would contend that words ‘other joint family properties’ will also include item No.2 of the schedule property. However, since it was pointed out by the defendants, as precautionary measure, I.A.No.135 of 2022 was filed. The Court below, after considering all these aspects, passed appropriate orders.
12. The point that arises for consideration is whether the Court below exceeded its j
