Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 95 (AP)

A. Rama Devi v. A. Nalini Reddy

2026-01-27

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2026
ORDER : B.S. Bhanumathi, J. This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and the decree dated 12.08.2025 dismissing I.A.No.322 of 2024 in O.S.No.39 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ananthapuramu filed by the defendant under Order VI, Rule 17 r/w 151 C.P.C. to permit the defendant to amend the written statement with the averments as follows: “Add Para 5-A & 5-B in the written statement: 5-A. "It is submitted that on 24.8.1937 the maternal uncle of Pedda Subbi Reddy (father-in-law of the plaintiff) and Chinna Subbi Reddy (father of this defendant) by name Bindela Balappa, S/o Yellappa has executed a Regd. Gift Deed vide doc. No.986/1937 in favour of father of this defendant and her senior paternal uncle i.e., father-in-law of the plaintiff, this defendant is nearly 78 years old document, the original gift deed is mutilated as it is ancient document, which shows the total number of Sy.No. properties were given to this defendant's father and his brother. Accordingly this defendant's father has become co-owner or co-sharer, but not co-parcenor and it is not the ancestral property devolved on the father of this defendant". 5-B. Accordingly the father of this defendant Chinna Subbi Reddy has executed a Regd. Gift Deed dt. 13.10.2010 in favour of this defendant bearing doc.No.3688/2010. Ever since the date of gift this defendant has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. There is another Regd. Gift bearing No.2083/2010 executed in favour of this defendant by her father gifted some other properties. The certified copies of regd. gift deeds dt.13.10.2010 doc.No.3688/2010 and Doc.No.2083/2010 for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. Therefore the suit is barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed". 2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.39 of 2015 against the defendant for declaration and permanent injunction over the suit schedule properties of Ac.12.50 cents in S.No.66-D and Ac.3.15 cents in S.No.56- C of Chabala village of Vakrakarur Mandal, Uravakonda Sub-Revenue Division of Ananthapuramu. 3. Therefore the suit is barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed". 2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.39 of 2015 against the defendant for declaration and permanent injunction over the suit schedule properties of Ac.12.50 cents in S.No.66-D and Ac.3.15 cents in S.No.56- C of Chabala village of Vakrakarur Mandal, Uravakonda Sub-Revenue Division of Ananthapuramu. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule properties and other properties were originally owned by A.Pedda Subbi Reddy and his brother A.Chinna Subbi Reddy who constituted a hindu joint family; on 07.07.1967, they partitioned their properties and enjoyed their respective share of the properties and later got it reduced into writing on 02.05.1975, a photostat copy of which is enclosed with the plaint; that the plaint schedule property and other properties fell to the share of A.Pedda Subbi Reddy and as such he submitted a declaration before the land ceiling authorities showing these properties as belonging to him and his children and it was accepted by the authorities; that these properties never belonged to A.Chinna Subbi Reddy; that A.Chinna Subbi Reddy filed a suit in O.S.No.167 of 1982 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu for partition of the properties against A.Nageswar Reddy, S/o A.Pedda Subbi Reddy and others; that the suit was renumbered as O.S.No.41 of 1997 on its transfer to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gooty; that the suit was dismissed for default; that the right of A.Chinna Subbi Reddy in the plaint schedule properties and other properties were denied by A.Nageswar Reddy and his brother in the said suit; that A.Chinna Subbi Reddy did not claim any right over the plaint schedule property and other properties subsequently during his life time; that A.Nageswar Reddy along with his brother, after the death of their father sold most of their properties to third parties under various registered sale deeds and possession of the properties were delivered to the purchasers; that A.Chinna Subbi Reddy or his successor in interest i.e., the defendant has never questioned the alienations made by A.Nageswar Reddy and his brother; that out of the properties fell to the share of A.Pedda Subbi Reddy only, the suit schedule property and another land in S.No.67 were available with A.Nageswar Reddy and his brother; that A.Nageswar Reddy and his brother Chinna Reddy orally partitioned their properties on 23.08.1991; that the plaint schedule properties fell to the share of A.Nageswar Reddy; that after the death of A.Nageswara Reddy, his wife i.e., the plaintiff succeeded to them; that pattadar pass book and title deeds were issued to her and the entries in the adangal for the fasli years 1420 and 1424 show the plaint schedule properties; that the defendant obtained pass book without knowledge of the plaintiff and therefore, it was cancelled by R.D.O. vide proceedings dated 20.11.2012 in Rc.No.D2 / 4473 / 2012; that the defendant filed a revision against the said order recently, however the defendant is claiming title over the property and trying to proclaim it in the village; that the plaintiff is residing in the U.S.A. and executed a general power of attorney in favour of P.Jagan Mohan Reddy on 01.12.2014 and in the light of the above said circumstances, she got the suit filed through her son / G.P.A. holder. 4. The defendant filed a written statement resisting the suit, however admitting that the suit schedule properties were ancestral and joint family properties owned by Anchala Subbi Reddy and his brother Chinna Subbi Reddy, but there was no partition, either oral or written, as pleaded and that the photostat copy of the document dated 02.05.1975 was created. It is further pleaded that A.Subbi Reddy settled at Ananthapuramu and was looking after the properties at Ananthapuramu and the entire family affairs, whereas Chinna Subbi Reddy who is the father of the defendant settled at Dharmapuri village of Uravakonda Mandal and was looking after the agriculture as he was an illiterate; that A.Subbi Reddy secreting movable and immovable properties worth crores of rupees by late A.Subbi Reddy, and there were serious disputes between the brothers; that it is well known that A.Subbi Reddy was one of the biggest money lenders in Ananthapuramu district and earned huge money with which he brought up his sons well educated and placed them in the highest position, leaving the sons of Chinna Subbi Reddy poor and attend labour work; that the brother of the defendant was also killed under suspicious circumstances; and that under these circumstances a suit for partition was filed vide O.S.No.167 of 1982 which was dismissed for default as none was there to follow the suit after the death of Chinna Subbi Reddy. The other details averred in the written statement are not much relevant for the purpose of this petition. 5. The trial commenced. While the evidence is in progress, the defendant filed I.A.No.322 of 2024 seeking the above amendments to the written statement. 6. The petition was opposed by the respondent / plaintiff by filing a counter, mainly stating that the petitioner cannot be permitted to take different view by way of amendment to the written statement and that the admissions earlier made by the petitioner in the written statement cannot be withdrawn by amendment with regard to the nature of the properties claimed to be joint family properties by the plaintiff. 7. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition concurring with the objection of the plaintiff. 8. Aggrieved by the order and the decree, this revision petition was filed. 9. Inspite of service of notice on the respondent, no appearance has been made. 10. 7. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition concurring with the objection of the plaintiff. 8. Aggrieved by the order and the decree, this revision petition was filed. 9. Inspite of service of notice on the respondent, no appearance has been made. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the facts that originally Bindela Balappa, S/o. Yellappa who is the maternal uncle of A.Pedda Subbi Reddy and A.Chinna Subbi Reddy executed a registered gift deed dated 24.08.1937 in favour of his nephews and later A.Chinna Subbi Reddy who is the father of the defendant executed the registered gift deed dated 13.10.2010 in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit schedule properties and also executed another gift deed dated 13.10.2010 regarding other properties in favour of the defendant, and since P.W.2, in the cross examination, admitted the gift deeds dated 13.10.2010 executed by the father of the defendant in favour of the defendant, the above sought amendments are necessary to lead evidence and contest the suit. He further submitted that in view of registered documents and admission of P.W.2, an opportunity may be given to the defendant to get the amendments made to the written statement. 11. Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. is excerpted hereunder: “ 17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 12. It is clear from the above stated rule, whenever a party to the suit seeks amendment to the pleadings, either the plaint or the written statement, after the commencement of the trial in that suit, reason for not seeking such amendment before commencement of the trial shall be established. If such amendments are sought before the commencement of the trial, a Court may adopt liberal approach and depending on the necessity and other parameters, allow an amendment. If such amendments are sought before the commencement of the trial, a Court may adopt liberal approach and depending on the necessity and other parameters, allow an amendment. But, unless the reason mandatory under the proviso is shown and established by the petitioner seeking amendment, an amendment cannot be permitted. A perusal of the affidavit annexed to the petition seeking amendment does not indicate even a single reason for not seeking these amendments before commencement of the trial. 13. That apart, the written statement was filed clearly admitting the pleadings of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties and the other properties are the joint family properties enjoyed by A.Pedda Subbi Reddy and A.Chinna Subbi Reddy. The only main defence pleaded in the written statement is denial of the oral partition between them pleaded by the plaintiff. Now, by introducing the gift deed dated 24.08.1937, the defendant seeks to deny the nature of the property as joint family property and introduce the pleadings that they are the separate properties of A.Pedda Subbi Reddy and A.Chinna Subbi Reddy. In addition to that, to establish that the plaint schedule properties did not fell to the share of A.Pedda Subbi Reddy and his son A.Nageswar Reddy, the defendant proposes to plead and file gift deeds executed by his father in his favour in the year 2010, particularly in relation to the plaint schedule properties in the registered gift deed dated 13.10.2010. 14. It is settled law that a property acquired by a person under a gift is his separate property, but the same can be treated as joint family property merging with joint family properties, if available. Therefore, merely because there is a gift deed, it need not always remain as separate property of a donee. That apart, it is also admitted fact that the brothers have not only the plaint schedule properties but other properties. Whether the brothers got their properties partitioned or not is the subject matter of issue in the suit and yet to be decided. All such evidence which establishes the contention of the plaintiff that there was a partition or the contention of the defendant that there was no partition can be led during the trial. Whether the brothers got their properties partitioned or not is the subject matter of issue in the suit and yet to be decided. All such evidence which establishes the contention of the plaintiff that there was a partition or the contention of the defendant that there was no partition can be led during the trial. If the gift deeds relied on by the defendant, alleged to be executed by his father in his favour, have any relevance to prove the defence, it is part of the evidence in support of the defence already taken. The defendant may take appropriate steps in that regard. 15. Be that as it may, since no reason was stated for not taking the proposed amendments before commencement of the trial and the proposed amendments, particularly with regard to the registered gift deed dated 24.08.1937, take away the admission regarding the joint family nature of the properties held by A.Subbi Reddy and A.Chinna Subbi Reddy, the proposed amendments cannot be permitted. 16. As such, this Court does not see any merit in the revision petition. 17. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.