ORDER:

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 29.11.2022 dismissing the I.A.No.323 of 2022 in O.S.No.46 of 2016 on the file of Additional District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint at para 11 as follows:

“The Plaintiff submits that, the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam was pleased to create charge on the plaint schedule property in its judgment dt.30.06.1987 in O.S.No.375 of 1980, the same was confirmed in A.S.No.83 of 1987 by The Principal District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam in its judgment dt.14.07.1992. Again The Principal District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam was pleased to confirm charge over the plaint schedule property so far as maintenance is concerned. So the maintenance is granted by identifying her pre-existing right and charge is created, again the maintenance is enhanced by the Principal District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam in its decree and judgment in OS.No.307 of 1994, dt.11.06.1997. So the maintenance is enhanced from Rs.200/- to Rs.1000/-, as such all the three judgments passed in favour of the Plaintiff on (Contd..

recognizing her pre-existing right of maintenance and in view of the charge created as per the above mentioned decrees, the limited right which is created through the court decrees, gets automatically enlarged under Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, into absolute right, not withstanding any restriction placed under the document or the instrument and that she became full owner, thereby Hindu lady acquires far more than the vestige of title which is deemed sufficient to attract Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act.”

2. The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant for declaration of that the plaintiff is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for recording the same by the evicting the defendant.

3. The case of plaintiff is briefly as follows:

The plaintiff is wife of late Sita Mohana Rao. They were married in the year 1969. Her husband developed hatred against her and filed H.M.O.P.No.108 of 1987 before Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam seeking divorce. The petition was decreed ex-parte on 30.08.1995. The plaintiff preferred revision against the said order before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. While the revision was pending, the husband of the plaintiff died on 18.02.1997. However, she could not prosecute the revision petition due to lack of proper legal advice. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff filed a suit for maintenance in O.S.No.375 of 1980 on the file of Court of Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam against her husband. The suit was decreed ordered her permanent and future maintenance vide judgment dated 30.06.1987 granting charge over the plaint schedule property. Her husband preferred an appeal vide AS.No.87 of 1987 on the file of court of District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. The appeal was dismissed on 14.07.1992. As the charge was created over the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.375 of 1980, the same got enlarged into her absolute property on the death of her husband. Initially, the plaintiff was granted maintenance of Rs.200/- per month and later she filed O.S.No.307 of 1994 on the file of Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge seeking enhancement of the maintenance. But, the said suit was dismissed for default on 11.06.1997 after the death of the husband of the plaintiff pending the suit. The defendant was proclaiming that the husband of the plaintiff executed a will in his favour in the year 1992. Though there is a decree of divorce granted in favour of the husband of the plaintiff, she is wife for all practical purposes in view of the definition of wife and thus the charge created over the property by a decree got enlarged into her absolute right under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and the said right cannot be defeated by any document including any will, if executed by her husband. She is the only legal heir to her h