THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.274 and 276 of 2022

COMMON ORDER:

Both these Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the common order dated 21.10.2021 in I.A. Nos.773 and 772 of 2019, respectively, in O.S. No.43 of 2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Huzurabad.

2. I.A. Nos.773 and 772 of 2019 were disposed of by a common order by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad. O.S No.43 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking the relief of partition of suit schedule properties and to pass a preliminary decree by allotting half share to her with metes and bounds. The plaintiff contended that she was the adopted daughter of defendant No.1 and her husband. She was adopted at the age of 3 years. She was none other than the daughter of the own sister of defendant No.1. Her marriage was performed by the defendant No.1 and her husband. Her adopted father died on 28.06.2012. She performed the cremation and pedda karma. Every year annual rituals were also performed by her. Subsequently, the defendant No.1 developed dislike towards her under the influence of defendant Nos.2 to 5. The defendant No.2 was the younger sister of defendant No.1, defendant No.3 was the husband of defendant No.2 and defendant Nos.3 and 4 were the daughter and son of defendant Nos.2 and 3.

3. The defendant No.1 filed written statement denying that the plaintiff was her adopted daughter. The documents filed by the plaintiff i.e. lagnapatrika and wedding card were created and invented for the purpose of the case. No documentary evidence was placed by the plaintiff to prove her alleged adoption. The plaintiff, taking advantage of the prior relationship being daughter of sister of defendant No.1, was creating and inventing the documents and filed the suit with a cooked up story.

4. During the course of trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1.

When the case was posted for further evidence of the plaintiff, at that stage, the plaintiff filed I.A. Nos.772 and 773 of 2019 to reopen her evidence vide I.A. No.772 of 2019 and to receive the registered Will Deed document No.79 of 2012 dated 05.10.2012 in terms of Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC vide I.A. No.773 of 2019. The plaintiff filed affidavits in support of the said applications stating that the defendant No.1 executed a registered Will deed vide document No.79 of 2012 dated 05.10.2012 for the postal deposits in favour of her and her father. The said document was a public document and it was relevant to prove her claim, hence sought permission to reopen her evidence and to mark the said document as exhibit in her favour.

5. The respondents-defendants filed counter contending that the said document was a created one. The plaintiff filed the same as an afterthought. The respondent No.1 never signed on the said alleged Will Deed. The petitions were filed only to protract the proceedings and prayed to dismiss the same.

6. The trial court, on considering the contentions of both the learned counsel, observed that the alleged Will Deed was dated 05.10.2012, which three years prior to the date of filing of the suit. The document was well within the care and custody of the petitioner-plaintiff. However, there was no explanation from her as to why she failed to file the said document along with the plaint. The Will Deed was executed in respect of certain amounts deposited in the post office, but not pertaining to items No.1, 2 and 3 of the suit schedule property. There were no pleadings with regard to the Will deed either in the plaint or in the chief examination affidavit of the plaintiff and by placing reliance upon the judgment of the High Court of A.P. in Nyayapathi srinivasa Raghavan v. Adinarayana Sastry (2012 (2) ALT 65), dismissed both the applications.

7. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said applications, the plaintiff preferred these revisions.

8. Heard Sri Nalla Mukunda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and Sri Chalakani Venkata Yadav, learned counsel