HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

* * * *

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.314 of 2025

Between:

Daggubati Yeeswara Krishna Mohan

..... PETITIONER

AND

M. V. Satyanarayana Rao and 5 others

.....RESPONDENTS

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 09.05.2025

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No

marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the Yes/No

fair copy of the Judgment?

_______________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI + CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.314 of 2025 % 09.05.2025 # Daggubati Yeeswara Krishna Mohan ….Petitioner Versus $ M. V. Satyanarayana Rao and 5 others ....Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M. R. S. Srinivas ^ Counsel for respondents : Sri Ch. Markondaiah < Gist :

> Head Note:

? Cases Referred: 1. (2010) 8 SCC 1

2. 1993 (2) APLJ 435 (HC)

3. AIR 1965 SC 871

4. 1988 SCC OnLine Ker 335

5. (2011) 2 SCC 705 6. (2022) 19 SCC 806 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 314 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri M. R. S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ch.

Markondaiah, learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the material on record.

2. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the 1^st defendant in O.S.No.104 of 1995 (in short ‘suit’) pending in the Court of the V Additional Senior Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada (in short ‘learned Court’). Muggula Ganga Ratnam, the mother of the present respondents No.1 to 6, filed O.S.No.104 of 1995 against Dhaggupati Yeeswara Krishna Mohan, 1^st defendant in the suit/present petitioner for possession of the plaint schedule property and for future profits from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of possession after ejecting the

1^st defendant and his tenants, with other consequential reliefs.

3. The plaintiff Muggula Ganga Ratnam died. The case of the 1^st defendant in the suit/present petitioner was that the husband of the plaintiff Muggula Ganga Ratnam had entered into an agreement of sale with him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2^nd defendant in the suit/1^st respondent herein filed I.A.No.539 of 2011 under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC to substitute the legal representatives in the place of the deceased plaintiff, I.A.No.540 of 2011 to set aside the abatement of the suit and I.A.No.541 of 2011 to transpose the 2^nd defendant/1^st respondent herein as plaintiff No.2 in the suit. On the aforesaid I.As, notices were issued to the 1^st defendant. He inter alia filed a memo in I.A.No.541 of 2011 and requested the Court for examination of the 2^nd defendant/1^st respondent herein, inter alia, on the point of the Will based on which the case of the 2^nd defendant was for transposition as plaintiff No.2, that the plaintiff, the mother had executed a Will in favour of the 2^nd defendant. The alleged Will in favour of the 2^nd defendant was also disputed by some of the other defendants, the sisters. That memo was rejected by the learned Court.

5. Being aggrieved from the rejection of such memo, as also the notices issued in I.A.Nos.539 and 540 of 2011, the 1^st defendant in the suit/the present petitioner filed three civil revision petitions, viz., CRP Nos.3697, 3893 and 4049 of 2012. Those three civil revision petitions were disposed of by the common Order dated 28.12.2017 by this Court, observing that since the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff Muggula Ganga Ratnam were already on record as defendants No.2 to 7, there was no question of filing application under the Limitation Act or for substitution under Order 22 or for setting aside the abatement under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC and therefore, there was nothing to adjudicate upon those applications by the learned Court.

6. However, with respect to the application for transposition of the 2^nd defendant as 2^nd plaintiff is concerne