2026:APHC:9038 APHC010062872026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3209]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos:417, 432 and 472 of 2026 C.R.P No:417 of 2026 Between:

1. M ELAM ANAND, S/O M.GANGA MANDADI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT SURAPPANAIDU KAINDRIGA VILLAGE, DM PURAM POST, KARVETINAGAR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. M ELAM CHANDRAMMA, W/O LATE M.SRINIVASULU, AGED ABOUT

51 YEARS. CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT SURAPPANAIDU KANDRIGA VILLAGE, DM PURAM POST, KARVETINAGAR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2.

2. V ARTHALA AMARAVATHI, W/O.V.MUNIKANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT

45 YEARS, RESIDING AT SETTYPALLI VOLLAGE, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3.

3. V ARTHALA REVATHI, W/O V.SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, TATTINEDU GOLLAPALI VILLAGE, VADAMALAPET POST AND MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 4.

4. V ARTHALA SUMATHI, W/O V.SURESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S.N.KANDRIGA, D.M.PURAM POST, KARVETINAGAR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

5. P ATTERN JAYANTHI, W/O P.NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S.N.KANDRIGA, D.M.PRAM (POST) KARVETINAGARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. DEVALARAJU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

The Court made the following Order:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present revision petitions are filed against the common order dated 23.09.2025 in I.A Nos.429, 430 and 487 of 2025 in O.S No.161 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puttur.

3. The petitioner herein is plaintiff, who filed the said suit seeking partition of Suit Schedule Property.

4. When the matter is posted for arguments, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the above three applications seeking to (i) reopen the suit, (ii) call for loan ledgers of Tirupati Co-Operative Bank Limited, Tirupati, bearing loan No.1389 dated 26.09.2001 and loan No.5806 dated 17.08.2004 and (iii) to send the same for comparison of signatures of the husband of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 with the disputed signatures on Ex.A1 i.e., unregistered partition deed dated 15.07.2010. The said applications were resisted by the respondents and ultimately, came to be dismissed vide common order impugned in the present revision petitions.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions to impress upon the Court that in view of the denial of the signatures of the deceased- husband of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in the written statement and the evidence adduced, the petitioner/plaintiff to substantiate his case of execution of unregistered partition deed between the petitioner/plaintiff and the husband of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 had sought for summoning of records i.e., loan ledgers referred to above which contains the signatures of the husband of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1. He submits that the learned Trial Court without considering the matter in the proper perspective, went wrong in dismissing the applications in question. He submits that comparison of the disputed signatures with that of the admitted signatures in the loan ledgers would help the Court in arriving at a just conclusion. He submits that the learned Trial Court went wrong in exercising the discretion vested in it and therefore, seeks interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

6. The learned counsel had also drawn the attention of this Court to observations made by the learned Trial Court that plaintiff has not sought any relief in respect of Ex.A1 i.e., unregistered partition deed and submits that in fact, the case of the petitioner is based on the said unregistered partition deed. Therefore, the observations may come in the way of the petitioner while making appropriate submissions at the time of final arguments in the suit.

7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.

8