APHC010103342024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 465/2024 Between:

1. M ANNAVA KOTESWARA RAO, S/O. LATE NAIDUMMA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. FARMER, R/O. GOTTIPADU VILLAGE, PATTIPADU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. 2 . MANNAVA NAGESWARA RAO,, S/O.KOTESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. FARMER, R/O. GOTTIPADU VILLAGE, PATTIPADU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. P ULLELA AKILANDAMMA, W/o. Janardhana Rao, Aged 70 years, R/o.

Gottipadu Village, Pattipadu Mandal, Guntur District.

...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toaggrieved by the Order, Dt. 26.12.2023 passed in LA No.723 of 2023 in O.S No.724/2016 on the file of the court of II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, Guntur District, the above named petitioner begs to prefer this memorandum of Civil Revision Petition for the following among other IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.724 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, district, pending disposal of the main C.R.P. and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SIVA RAMA KRISHNA KOLLURU Counsel for the Respondent:

1. A RAJENDRA BABU The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The defendants/petitioners herein have filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 26.12.2023 in I.A.No.723 of 2023 in O.S.No.724 of 2016 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, whereby the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.723 of 2023 filed under Order XIII, Rule 4 and Section 151 CPC by the petitioners/defendants to demark and reject Ex.A4.

2. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.724 of 2016 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, seeking the relief of declaration along with recovery of possession of a vacant site against the petitioners herein/defendants.

3. The petitioners herein/defendants filed a written statement in the said suit specifically contending that they do not admit the alleged partition list said to have been executed between the 1^st petitioner’s father and his brother Seshaiah. The said document was marked as Ex.A4 on behalf of the plaintiff, subject to an objection raised by the learned counsel for the defendants that Ex.A4 is not a partition list, but it is a settlement deed, which requires stamp duty and registration. As such, it was contended that the said partition list cannot be marked, as it requires stamp duty and registration. But, however, the plaintiff got the same marked as Ex.A4.

4. Thereafter, the petitioners/defendants filed I.A.No.723 of 2023 under Order XIII, Rule 4 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, requesting the Court below to de-mark and reject Ex.A4 and to eschew the evidence relating to Ex.A4 from the evidence of PW1 on the ground that it is not a partition list but it is a settlement deed and it requires stamp duty and registration. The said application was dismissed. Challenging the said dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

5. Heard Mr.K.Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.A.Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for respondent.

6. The admitted facts in the present case are that the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff in the year 2016, duly enclosing the said partition list alleged to have been executed between the father of the 1^st defendant and his father’s brother Seshaiah dated 01.06.1954. Immediately, in the year 2016, the defendants filed a written statement objecting the said partition list filed along with