THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1245 & 1656 of 2022

COMMON ORDER:

C.R.P.No.1245 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner - plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 15.03.2022 passed in I.A.No.196 of 2022 in O.S.No.42 of 2015 by the learned XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, while, C.R.P.No.1656 of 2022 is filed by the defendants 1 and 2 against the same order.

2. I.A.No.196 of 2022 is filed by defendants 1 and 2 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice to permit them to amend the written statement filed by them and to carry out consequential amendments. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties alleging that the same were joint family properties. The defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement pleading that the father of defendant No.1 late J.Chitta Reddy executed a registered Will deed dated 12.01.1981 vide document No.2/1981 bequeathing all his properties including H.No.1-10-303 to all his four sons i.e. defendant No.1 and his brothers namely Late J.Narayana Reddy, Late J.Raji Reddy, and Mr.J.Narsimha Reddy. The defendant No.1 became absolute owner to an extent of one-fourth share in Ac.2-00 guntas of land in Survey No.50, Ac.1-30 guntas in Survey No.51, Ac.0-15 guntas in Survey No.52 and Ac.1-13 guntas in Survey No.66 of Pedda Thokatta Village and was in possession and enjoyment of the same. His eldest brother namely late J.Narayana Reddy executed a registered release deed dated 09.12.1982 vide document No.3026 of 1982 releasing his share in favor of his three brothers.

4. The defendant No.1 in the affidavit filed along with the petition under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC stated that the original registered Will deed dated 12.01.1981 was in the custody of his elder brother Mr.J.Narsimha Reddy and he came to know about the same two months ago. Earlier, he was under bonafide impression that the original Will deed dated 12.01.1981 was with him and the same could be produced at the time of his evidence. After thorough search, he could not find the same and realized that the same was with his elder brother Mr.J.Narsimha Reddy. As the said fact came to his knowledge at that juncture, the same had to be incorporated in the written statement by way of amendment. The proposed amendment related to real controversy in issue and was also necessary due to subsequent developments, which were not to the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing the written statement. He requested Mr.J.Narsimha Reddy to furnish the original registered Will deed dated 12.01.1981 to enable him to file the same in the case. The said Mr.J.Narsimha Reddy promised him to furnish the same, but, however, under the influence of the plaintiff, started dodging the matter. In such circumstances, he addressed a registered letter dated 03.11.2021 through RPAD requesting his brother Mr.J.Narsimha Reddy to provide him the original registered Will deed dated 12.01.1981, but he failed to respond. Such facts were subsequent events, which could not be mentioned in the written statement filed by him. In the said circumstances, the original Will deed could not be produced before the Court. Already pleadings were set forth in the written statement with regard to execution and registration of registered Will deed dated 12.01.1981. The proposed amendment was merely an elaboration of such pleadings. No new case was sought to be set up. The proposed amendment was related to real controversy in issue. If the said amendment was allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent – plaintiff, on the other hand, the matter could be effectively decided on merits and prayed to permit them to amend the written statement filed by them and to carry out the necessary consequential amendments in the original written statement of defendants 1 and 2.

5. The respondent - plaintiff filed counter contending that the alleged Will was a forged and fabrica