ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.594 of 2021 in O.S.No.286 of 2012 by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapalli.

2. O.S.No.286 of 2012 is filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5/plaintiffs for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. During the pendency of the Suit, I.A.No.594 of 2021 was filed by respondents No.1 to 5/plaintiffs to bring the proposed plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 as legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No.1 on record. The trial Court considering the arguments and the material on record, allowed the application. Aggrieved, by the order of the trial Court, the petitioner/defendant No.7 filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that O.S.No.286 of 2012 is filed by Ambati Satyanarayana Reddy/plaintiff No.1. It was pleaded in the plaint that one Ambati Santamma was the protected tenant of Kota Venkata Raja Umapathi of the land in Sy.No.113 (113/A) admeasuring Ac.4.39 guntas in Madaka Village of Odela Mandal, Peddapally District. The said Ambati Santamma was pleaded as owner of the said land and her husband died 45 years back leaving herself and her two daughters and she died on 04.01.2012. The husbands of her two daughters have also died during the life time of Santamma. Both the daughters requested the plaintiff No.1 and authorized by them by executing a G.P.A vide document No.180 of 2012 dated 21.11.2012 to enable the plaintiff No.1 to file the case against the defendants.

5. In the written statement filed by respondent No.7/defendant No.2, she stated that plaintiff No.1 has no right or claim in any manner in respect of the suit land. He has no locus standi to file the suit for declaration and other reliefs and also to challenge the decree in O.S.No.210 of 1984 and the gift deed No.3963/2012. Plaintiff No.1 has not obtained permission under Rule 32 of C.P.C to file the suit and the suit is not filed within the limitation and it is barred by limitation.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner further stated that in view of the death of plaintiff No.1, the suit being filed in the capacity of GPA holder and no personal interest or right involved in the suit land except being authorized by the daughters of Ambati Santamma. The trial Court ought to have considered that as per Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, that on the death of an agent, the agency comes to an end and as such the bringing of the LRs of said agent does not arise and it is not proper. He further contended that a per the Section 190 of Contract Act, 1872, the GPA holder in whom confidence is reposed has, generally speaking not to delegate his authority a delegated authority cannot be delegated further (sub delegation of powers by GPA) and as such no interest devolved the LRs of GPA, who is plaintiff in the Suit and who died during the pendency of the Suit, they are not entitled to be brought on record. Moreover, palitnff No.1 died on 21.12.2020 and the application to bring LRs of plaintiff on record was filed on 22.11.2021 i.e., almost one year. As per the Article 120 of Limitation Act, the LR petition should be filed within 90 days from the date of death and in the absence of the same, the Suit stands abated. But the said Limitation Act was not considered. The trial Court failed to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and thus requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

7. A perusal of the record shows that O.S.No.286 of 2012 is filed by Ambati Satyanarayana Reddy/plaintiff No.1. Ambati Santamma was pleaded as owner of the suit land and she died on 04.01.2012 leaving behind her two daughters namely Laxmi Kantha and Vajramma. The husbands of her two daughters have also died during the life time of Santamma. Though it was stated that both the daughters requested the plaintiff No.1 and authorized by them by executing a G.P.A vide document No.180 of 2012 dated 2