Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRSENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1364 OF 2010 Between:
1. Achutuni Sitharavamma W/o. Late A.G.K.Murthy Housewife Plot No. 25, C/o. Srinivasarao D.No. 24-25/4 Adithya Apts., Vishnupuri Colony, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad
2. Siripurapu Swarajya Lakshmi W/o. Late Lakshmi Narayana Housewife D.No. 25-16/117/3, Dr.K.Kondanda Ramaiah Chuttugunta, Guntur District MMC
3. Chunduru Savithri Devi W/o. Ch. KRishna Kumar R/o. MGI 64, A.P.Housing Board Colony Guntur District MMC ...PETITIONER(S)
AND:
1. Turaga Ananda Rao S/o. Late Rama Murthy D.No. 42-3/1-62, A Koduru Raju Street Rama Krishnapuram, Vijayawada-3 MMC
4. Turaga MAnikya Rao S/o. Late Rama Murthy Plot No. 14 Teachers Colony Gunrock Tirumalagiri Secunderabad
5. Turaga Babu Rao S/o. Late Rama Murthy Retd. Physical Education Teacher, High School, Guntur R/o. Plot no. 401, Yaganti Bliss Krishnanagar Main Road Guntur
6. Turaga Suryanarayana Murthy S/o. Late Rama Murthy ASI of Police D.No. 5-89-8/1, 3rd Line Lakshmipuram Beside Pitchaiah Hotel Guntur
7. Turaga Venkata Sitha Rama Rao S/o. Late Radha Krishna Murthy Employee Plot no. 9, MES Colony Picket Secunderabad-26 Secunderabad MMC
8. Turaga Sankara Narayana Rao S/o. Late Radha Krishna Murthy Employee Plot no. 9, MES Colony Picket Secunderabad-26 Secunderabad MMC
9. Turaga Ramanath Tilak @ Ramesh S/o. Late Radha Krishna Murthy Employee Plot no. 9, MES Colony Picket Secunderabad-26 Secunderabad MMC
10. Turaga Venkata Sri Rama Murthy S/o. Late Radha Krishna Murthy Employee Plot no. 9, MES Colony Picket Secunderabad-26 Secunderabad MMC
11. Turaga Kameswara Rao S/o. Late Rama Murthy 2023:APHC:18309 C/o. Turaga Ganesh, Employee in Prashanta Nilayam Behind Sathyamma Temple, NEar Banian Factory, Puttaparthi Ananthapur District
12. Turaga Rama Devi w/o. Late Rama Murthy C/o. Turaga Suryanarayana Murthy D.No. 5-89-8/1, 3rd line, Lakshmipuram Beside Pitchaiah Hotel, Guntur
13. Turaga Mahalakshmi W/o. Late Prasada Rao D.No. 2-3-512/A/149 Pallavi Caterers, Pallavi Nilayam Near J.N.Polytechnic College, Chennareddy Nagar Amberpet, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad
14. Turaga Naga Balaji S/o. Late Prasada RAo D.No. 2-3-512/A/149 Pallavi Caterers, Pallavi Nilayam Near J.N.Polytechnic College, Chennareddy Nagar Amberpet, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner(s): C.PANINI SOMAYAJI Counsel for the Respondents: A V KRISHNA KOUNDINYA The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ****
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1364 OF 2010 Between:
Achutuni Sitharavamma and two (02) others … Petitioners/Defendant Nos.7 to 9 Versus Turaga Ananda Rao and thirteen (13) others ...Respondents * * * * *
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 13.06.2023 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Yes/No ____________________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI * HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI + CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1364 OF 2010 % 13.06.2023 # Between:
Achutuni Sitharavamma and two (02) others … Petitioners/Defendant Nos.7 to 9 Versus Turaga Ananda Rao and thirteen (13) others ...Respondents ! Counsel for the Revision : Sri C.Panini Somayaji petitioners ^ Counsel for the Respondent : Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya Nos.1, 5, 6 & 8 ^ Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Vijaya Bhaskar Moola Nos.2 & 7 ^ Counsel for the Respondent Sri M.Radha Krishna :
No.3 ^ Counsel for the Respondent : Sri N.Sanyasi Rao No.4 ^ Counsel for Respondent No.9 : Died, proposed LRs R.13 & 14 ^ Counsel for the Respondent Not claimed (Deemed to be :
No.10 served)
Not claimed (Deemed to be ^ Counsel for the Respondent served) proof of service filed :
Nos.11 & 12 vide USR No.7874/17 ^ Counsel for the Respondent : Notice served No.13 Refused (Deemed to be ^
Counsel for the Respondent served) proof of service filed :
No.14 vide USR No.4709/17 < Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2007 (2) ALT 52 (SC). 2. 2006 (6) ALT 38 (SC).
3. AIR 2012 SC 169. 4. (2018) 2 SCC 343.
5. (2020) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1.
6. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 360.
This Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1364 of 2010
O R D E R:
This revision-petition is directed against the Order, dated
18.02.2010 passed in I.A.No.639 of 2009 filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity „CPC‟), in I.A.No.388 of 2007 in O.S.No.86 of 1986 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge‟s Court, Tenali. The Trial Court „Allowed‟ the said application filed to review the Order, dated 17.08.2009 passed in I.A.No.93 of 2009 in I.A.No.388 of 2007 in O.S.No.86 of
1986.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the Trial Court proceedings.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:
The plaintiff, defendant Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the sons, defendant Nos.7 to 9 are the daughters of late Turaga Ramamurthy. Defendant No.1 is the second wife of Turaga Ramamurthy and mother of plaintiff, defendant Nos.3 to 9 and stepmother to defendant No.2. The plaintiff contends that he is entitled to 11/70th share in the joint family properties, but the defendant Nos.1 and 3 to 9 are not cooperating for partition. It was alleged that the defendant No.5 is managing the entire joint family properties without accounting for it and the defendant Nos.5 and 6 in collusion with others, purchased „C‟ schedule property on 03.06.1987 for Rs.5,000/- with joint family funds. Thus, the plaintiff is also entitled for 11/70th share in „C‟
schedule property.
4. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.86 of 1986 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge‟s Court, Tenali against the defendants for Partition and it was preliminarily decreed on 29.04.1993 holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 11/70th share and defendant Nos.10 and 11, who are co-sharers, are entitled to 1/5th share in the share of plaintiff; the defendant Nos.2, 3 to 6 are entitled to 11/70th share each and defendant Nos.1, 7 to 9 are entitled to 1/70th share each in the plaint „A‟ and „C‟ schedule properties.
5. Later the Defendant Nos.7 to 9 filed I.A.No.388 of 2007 under Order XX Rule 18 and Section 151 of CPC to pass a Final Decree as per the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005). The Trial Court in its Order, dated 13.10.2008 appointed an Advocate-Commissioner directing to divide plaint „A‟
and „C‟ schedule properties into 100 equal shares and to allot 11 such shares to each of them.
6. While so, the defendant Nos.7 to 9 filed another application in I.A.No.93 of 2009 for amendment of last para of the Judgment and preliminary decree for substitution of division of plaint „A‟ and „C‟ schedule properties into 100 equal shares in the place of 70 equal shares and for allotment of shares to the respective sharers impleading defendant Nos.3 to 6, plaintiff and defendant Nos.1, 10 and 11. The learned Trial Court allowed the said application on 17.08.2009.
7. Aggrieved by the said Order, the defendant Nos.3 to 6 and legal representatives of the defendant No.2 filed a petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC to review the Order passed in I.A.No.93 of 2009, dated 17.08.2009 on the ground that Section 6 (3) of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005) applies only to cases where Hindu dies after the commencement of Amendment Act of 2005 and it is prospective, but not retrospective in operation, as Turaga Ramamurthy died on 17.07.1961, the amended Act does not apply to the facts of the case and even Andhra Pradesh Amended Act 13 of 1986 also does not apply to the daughters i.e., defendant Nos.7 to 9, as their marriage was performed prior to commencement of amended Act.
8. The Trial Court, considering the decisions rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sheela Devi and others vs. Lal Chand and another1 and Anar Devi vs. Parameswari Devi and others2, „Allowed‟ the application on 18.02.2010 holding that succession to the property of Turaga Ramamurthy opened after his death in the year 1961, which is much prior to the cut-off date 09.09.2005, given for commencement of 2005 Amendment Act and therefore, his estate vests on his lawful sharers immediately, as
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
