Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 14705
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRSENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2069 OF 2023 Between:
1. MANNE RAJANI KUMARI W/o Venkata Satyanarayana, age 45 years, R/o D.No. 1-104, Peda-Amiram Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND:
1. NAVVURI SUJATHA W/o Madhusudana Reddy, age 48 years, R/o Houseing Board Colony, Kadapa, Kadapa District.
2. Manne Manikyam (died)
3. Manne Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o Krishna Rao, age 52 years, R/o D.No. 1-104, Peda-Amiram Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District.
4. Gorla Peddintlu, W/o Late Gangadhara Rao, age 65 years, Mandapadu Village, Akividu Mandal, West Godavari District.
5. Kandula Gangaratnam W/o Surya Rao, age 58 years, Peda-Amiram Village, Kalla Mandal, West Godvari District.
6. Kandukuri Pallaratnam (died)
7. Kandukuri Peddiraju, S/o Mangaraju, age 62 years, Retd., Employee, Peda-Amiram,Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner(s): P N MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents:
The Court made the following: ORDER HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
ORDER:
The petitioner sought to implead herself in O.S.No.55 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. The case of the petitioner is that her grandfather had executed a Will, dated 02.12.1991, in respect of 260 sq. yards and thatched shed therein, by bequeathing the same in favour of his wife-defendant No.1 by giving life interest to her and vested remainder to the petitioner herein on the said property. It is stated that the grandmother of the petitioner passed away on 11.12.2022, after which the property in question became the absolute property of the petitioner.
2. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent herein had moved O.S.No.55 of 2016 before the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, for recovery of mortgage debt and for sale of the property which was bequeathed to the petitioner on the ground that the defendants in the suit, including the grandmother of the petitioner, her husband and the mother and sister of the husband of the petitioner had borrowed money from the 1st respondent-plaintiff and had mortgaged the property as security for repayment.
3. The petitioner, after the demise of her grandmother, who was arrayed as defendant No.1 in the suit, had moved I.A.No.414 of 2023 to implead herself, on the ground that the subject matter of the mortgage suit property was her absolute property and on which none of the defendants had any right or claim.
4. This application was resisted by the 1st respondent and the same came to be dismissed on 17.07.2023. The Trial Court took the view that the inordinate delay in filing of an application to implead herself would non-suit the petitioner herein. The trial Court took the view that the suit was filed against the close family members including her husband, and it is not possible to believe that the petitioner was unaware of the pendency of the suit or the fact that the defendants could not have mortgaged the property. In the circumstances, the trial Court disbelieved the version of the petitioner and had held that the petitioner is not a necessary or property party for disposal of the suit.
5. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said order. The inordinate delay of seven years in moving the above application casts any amount of doubt about the existence of the Will propounded by the petitioner.
6. In the circumstances, the civil revision petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
24th August, 2023 Js.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
24th August, 2023 Js.
