APHC010310512025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT:THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1642 & 1705 of 2025

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1455 of 2025

Between:

1. KARRA DEENAMMA, (DIED) (DEFENDANT NO.1)

2. BANDI VAJRAM @ RAJESWARIDEVI, W/O VIVEKANANDA, AGED

ABOUT 51 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, M.I.G

VUDA COLONY, VISAKAPATNAM. (D5)

1. KARRA SARALA, WO LATE SASI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

R/O D.NO. 165, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, BHATTIPROLU,

BHATTIPROLU (V AND M) GUNTUR DISTRICT (PLAINTIFF)

2. KARRA SWARNALA

48 YEARS, RENTS AND CULTIVATION, R/O D.NO.2

RAILWAY STATION, BHATTIPROLU (V AND M) GUNTUR DISTRICT.

3. KARRA RAGHUBABU, S/0 LATE MANOJ KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27

YEARS, R/O D.NO.2

(V AND M) GUNTUR DISTRICT. (D3)

CRP Nos. 1455, 1642 & 1705 of 2025

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1455/2025

ALONG WITH

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1642 & 1705 of 2025

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1455 of 2025

KARRA DEENAMMA, (DIED) (DEFENDANT NO.1)

BANDI VAJRAM @ RAJESWARIDEVI, W/O VIVEKANANDA, AGED

ABOUT 51 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, M.I.G - 87, MADHAVA DHARA,

VUDA COLONY, VISAKAPATNAM. (D5)

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

KARRA SARALA, WO LATE SASI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

R/O D.NO. 165, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, BHATTIPROLU,

BHATTIPROLU (V AND M) GUNTUR DISTRICT (PLAINTIFF)

KARRA SWARNALA THA, W/O LATE MANOJ KUMAR, AGED ABOUT

48 YEARS, RENTS AND CULTIVATION, R/O D.NO.2

RAILWAY STATION, BHATTIPROLU (V AND M) GUNTUR DISTRICT.

KARRA RAGHUBABU, S/0 LATE MANOJ KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27

YEARS, R/O D.NO.2-165, OPP RAILWAY STATION, BHA

(V AND M) GUNTUR DISTRICT. (D3)

RC,J

CRP Nos. 1455, 1642 & 1705 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

[3332]

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1642 & 1705 of 2025

BANDI VAJRAM @ RAJESWARIDEVI, W/O VIVEKANANDA, AGED

87, MADHAVA DHARA,

...PETITIONER(S)

KARRA SARALA, WO LATE SASI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

R/O D.NO. 165, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, BHATTIPROLU,

BHATTIPROLU (V AND M) GUNTUR DISTRICT (PLAINTIFF)

THA, W/O LATE MANOJ KUMAR, AGED ABOUT

48 YEARS, RENTS AND CULTIVATION, R/O D.NO.2 -165, 0PP.

RAILWAY STATION, BHATTIPROLU (V AND M) GUNTUR DISTRICT.

KARRA RAGHUBABU, S/0 LATE MANOJ KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27

165, OPP RAILWAY STATION, BHA TTIPROLU

RC,J

CRP Nos. 1455, 1642 & 1705 of 2025

2

4. KARRA EMMADEEP, S/O LATE MANOJ KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 24

YEARS R/O D.NO.2-165, OPP RAILWAY STATION, BHATTIPROLU

(V AND M) GUNTUR DISTRICT

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the

circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be

pleased to Aggrieved by the order and decretal order dated 05-03-2025

passed in I.A. No. 65 of 2023 in O.S. No. 68 of 2011 on the file of the court of

the Senior Civil Judge at Repalle, the Petitioner herein files the present Civil

Revision Petition in this Honble court for the following among the other

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.68/2011

pending on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge Repalle, pending

disposal of the above Revision Petition in the interest of justice and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. C.PANINI SOMAYAJI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1642/2025

Between:

1. KARRA DEENAMMA(DIED), (D1)

2. BANDI VAJRAM @ RAJESWARIDEVI, W/O VIVEKANANDA, AGED

ABOUT 51 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, M.I.G - 87, MADHAVA

DHARA, VUDA COLONY, VISAKAPATNAM. (D5)

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

RC,J

CRP Nos. 1455, 1642 & 1705 of 2025

3

1. KARRA SARALA, WO LATE SASI KUMAI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36

YEARS. DOOR NO. 165, NEAR RAILWAY STATION,

BHATTIPROLU, BHATTIPROLU MANDAL, REPALLE JCJC.

(PLAINTIFF)

2. KARRA SWARNALATHA, W/0 LATE MANOJ KUMAR, HINDU, AGED

ABOUT 48 YEARS, RENTS AND CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF

DOOR NO.2- 165. OPPOSITE TO RAILWAY STATION,

BHATTIPROLU VILLAGE AND MANDA L, REPALLE JCJC, GUNTUR

DISTRICT. (D2).

3. KARRA RAGHUBABU, S/0 LATE MANOJ KUMAR, HINDU, AGED

ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.2- 165. OPPOSITE TO

RAILWAY STATION, BHATTIPROLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL,

REPALLE JCJC, GUNTUR DISTRICT (D3).

4. KARRA EMMADEEP, IS/O LATE MANOJ KUMAR,HINDU, AGED

ABOUT 24 YEARS,RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.2- 165. OPPOSITE TO

RAILWAY STATION, BHATTIPROLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL,

REPALLE JCJC. (D4)

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the

circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be

pleased topleased to allow the Revision by Setting aside the impugned order

dated 05-03-2025 passed in I.A. No. 64 of 2023 in O.S. No. 68 of 2011 on the

file of the Senior Civil Judge, Repalle in the interest of justice

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. C.PANINI SOMAYAJI

RC,J

CRP Nos. 1455, 1642 & 1705 of 2025

4

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1705/2025

Between:

1. KARRA DEENAMMA (DIED), (DIED) (D1)

2. BANDI VAJRAM @ RAJESWARIDEVI, WO VIVEKANANDA, AGED

ABOUT 51 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, M.I.G - 87, MADHAVA

DHARA, VUDA COLONY, VISAKAPATNAM.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. KARRA SARALA, , WO LATE SASI KUMAI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 36

YEARS. DOOR NO. 165, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, BHATTIPROLU,

BHATTIPROLU MANDAL, REPALLE JCJC. (PLAINTIFF)

2. KARRA SWARNALATHA, W/0 LATE MANOJ KUMAR, HINDU, AGED

ABOUT 48 YEARS, RENTS AND CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF

DOOR NO 2- 165. OPPOSITE TO RAILWAY STATION,

BHATTIPROLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, REPALLE JCJC, GUNTUR

DISTRICT. (D2)

3. KARRA RAGHUBABU, S/O LATE MANOJ KUMAR, HINDU, AGED

ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO2- 165. OPPOSITE TO

RAILWAY STATION, BHATTIPROLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL,

REPALLE JCJC, GUNTUR DISTRICT

4. KARRA EMMADEEP, LS/0 LATE MANOJ KUMAR, HINDU, AGED

ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO 2- 165. OPPOSITE TO

RAILWAY STATION, BHATTIPROLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL,

REPALLE JCJC. (D4)

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the

circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be

pleased to Aggrieved by the order in I.A. No. 90 of 2024 in O.S. No. 68 of

2011 on the file of the Honble Sr. Civil Judge at Repally

RC,J

CRP Nos. 1455, 1642 & 1705 of 2025

5

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. C.PANINI SOMAYAJI

The Court made the following:

RESERVED ON 28.04.2026

PRONOUNCED ON 08.05.2026

UPLOADED ON 08.05.2026

RC,J

CRP Nos. 1455, 1642 & 1705 of 2025

6

COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed questioning the legality and

correctness of the order dated 05.03.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.65, 64 of 2023 &

I.A.No.90 of 2024 in O.S.No.68 of 2011 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Repalle.

2. Inasmuch as these Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the orders

passed in interlocutory petitions in a single suit, they were heard together and

are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The Civil Revision Petitioner is defendant No.5, the respondent no.1

is the plaintiff and respondent nos. 2 to 4 are co-defendant nos.2 to 4 in

O.S.No.68 of 2011. Defendant No.1 in the suit died.

4. The facts that led to filing of these Civil Revision Petition nos.1455 &

1642 of 2025, in brief, are that respondent no.1 filed the suit vide O.S.No.68

of 2011 for partition. In the said suit, the defendant no.5 filed petitions vide

I.A.No.65 of 2023 under Order-13, Rule-1 CPC to direct the plaintiff to

produce the original Will dated 25.12.1995 executed by father of defendant

no.5 and I.A.No.64 of 2023 under Order-18, Rule-17 CPC to recall P.W.1 for

further cross-examination. The respondents resisted the claim made in the

petitions by filing counters. The learned trial Judge upon hearing the counsel

RC,J

CRP Nos. 1455, 1642 & 1705 of 2025

7

and upon perusing the material available on record, dismissed the petitions.

Aggrieved thereby, defendant no.5 filed the Civil Revision Petitions.

5. The facts that led to filing of the Civil Revision Petition No.1705 of

2025, in brief, are that the plaintiff filed petition vide I.A.No.90 of 2024

praying the Court to club the suit vide O.S.No.114 of 2016 along with the suit

vide O.S.No.68 of 2011. The defendant no.5/ Civil Revision Petitioner,

contested the petition by filing counter contending that the causes of action,

the plaint schedule properties and the claims of both the suits are entirely

distinct and different and hence they cannot be clubbed together. The learned

trial Judge, upon considering the material available on record and the

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, allowed the petition.

Aggrieved thereby, the defendant no.5 filed this Civil Revision Petition.

6. Heard Sri Sivalanka Rama Chandra Prasad, learned counsel for the

Civil Revision Petitioner/ defendant no.5, and Sri Panini Somayaji, learned

counsel for respondent no.1/plaintiff.

7. Sri Sivalanka Rama Chandra Prasad, learned counsel for defendant

no.5, while reiterating the contents of the affidavits filed in support of the

petitions filed before the trial Court vide I.A.Nos.64 & 65 of 2023 would

contend that the trial Court erred in observing that defendant no.1 did not

RC,J

CRP Nos. 1455, 1642 & 1705 of 2025

8

mention in her written statement about execution of Will dated 25.12.1995 by

her husband, whereas, in fact the defendant no.1 in her additional written

statement clearly mentioned about execution of Will dated 25.12.1995 in her

favour by her husband, however, the trial Court completely ignored the

contents of the additional written statement. He would further contend that

the observation of the trial Court regarding non-mention of the Will in the

written statement of defendant no.1 is perverse and runs contrary to the

contents of the additional written statement and therefore, the conclusion

reached by the learned trial Judge in dismissing the petition is contrary to the

material available on record and shows the gross non-application of judicial

mind and hence the order passed in I.A.No.65 of 2023 in dismissing the

petition has to be set aside.

He would further contend that the learned trial Judge dismissed the

petition vide I.A.No.64 of 2023 filed for recall of P.W.1 by reproducing the

order passed in I.A.No.65 of 2023, ignoring the fact that P.W.1 is sought to

be recalled for eliciting material evidence with regard to the existence and

suppression of original Will dated 25.12.1995. He would further contend that

the trial Court completely oblivious of the mandate contained in Order-18,

Rule-17 of Code of Civil Procedure that a witness can be recalled at any stage

RC,J

CRP Nos. 1455, 1642 & 1705 of 2025

9

of the suit for the purpose of clarification of further evidence. He would

further contend that the trial Court upon misconception that recall of P.W.1 is

sought only to mark Photo copy of the Will dated 25.12.1995 erroneously

dismissed the petition resulting in miscarriage of justice. He would further

contend that denying the opportunity to the defendant no.5 to further cross-

examining P.W.1, who suppressed the original Will, to get clarification in that

regard would cause grave prejudice and violates her fundamental right of

effectively defending her case. He would further contend that getting

clarification would not amend to filling up gaps or omission or lacunae, but for

eliciting a clarification, however, the trial Court upon misconception of facts

erroneously dismissed the petition filed for recalling P.W.1 and hence the said

order has to be set aside.

He would further contend that the issues involved, the evidence to be

let in, the schedule of properties and the claims made by the parties in

O.S.No.114 of 2006 and O.S.No.68 of 2011 are entirely different and distinct

and hence clubbing of suits of such a nature is impermissible, since would

create confusion, however the learned trial Judge erroneously ordered

clubbing of the suits and hence the order impugned in CRP No.1705 of 2025

is liable to be set aside.

RC,J

CRP Nos. 1455, 1642 & 1705 of 2025

10

Accordingly, the learned counsel for Civil Revision Petitions prayed to

allow the Civil Revision Petitions by setting aside the orders impugned therein.

8. On the other hand, Sri C.Panini Somayaji, learned counsel for

respondent no.1/ plaintiff would contend that there is no reference of the Will

dated 25.12.1995 said to be have been executed by her father-in-law in

favour of her mother-in-law/defendant no.1 in her written statement, however

in additional written statement she came up with a cooked up story as if there

was Will executed by her husband in her favour/defendant no.1 and to cover

up the false story, another false story was woven as if though the said Will

was entrusted to her previous counsel, he failed to mention the same in the

written statement and this clearly shows the falsity of existence of the alleged

Will dated 25.12.1995 and the learned trial Judge upon meticulous analysis of

the facts and circumstances had rightly dismissed the petitions vide

I.A.Nos.64 & 65 of 2023. He would further contend that the letter addressed

by the counsel to defendant no.1 nowhere refers to existence of the Will

except stating that ‘all the documents pertaining to the properties’ and

therefore, the contents of the letter even by a slightest inking suggest

existence of Will and handing it over to husband of the plaintiff, and

therefore, the learned trial Judge had rightly dismissed the petitions and the

RC,J

CRP Nos. 1455, 1642 & 1705 of 2025

11

well-considered orders do not require interference of this Court. Accordingly,

prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition Nos.1455 & 1642 of 2025.

He would further contend that the subject matter of the suits vide

O.S.Nos.114 of 2016 and 68 of 2011 is interlinked and the evidence to be

adduced and the documents to be marked as common and hence to avoid

repetition of evidence and conflicting judgments, the learned trial Judge upon

perusing the material available on record rightly clubbed both the suits,

observing that though the schedule of properties are different, but the claims

made by the parties is one and the same. He would further contend that

there is neither impropriety nor procedural irregularity in clubbing the suit and

the said well-considered order does not require interference of this Court.

Accordingly, prayed to dismiss CRP No.1705 of 2025.

9. Perused the material available on record and considered the

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

10. The respondent no.1/plaintiff filed the suit vide O.S.No.68 of 2011

arraigning wife, wife and children of predeceased son, and daughter of Karre

Immanuel as defendants 1 to 5 for partition of the properties of the said Karre

Immanuel acquired by him from out of joint family properties and the income

derived by husbands of plaintiff and defendant no.2. It is her further

RC,J

CRP Nos. 1455, 1642 & 1705 of 2025

12

contention in the plaint that her husband during her lifetime executed a Will

dated 26.01.2006 in a sound and disposing state of mind and consequent to

his death, the said Will came into force and the plaintiff has been in

possession and enjoyment of 1/4

th

share of the joint family properties. It is

her further case in the plaint that defendant nos. 2 to 4 (wife and children of

predeceased son of Immanuel and defendant no.1) filed suit vide O.S.No.158

of 2001 for partition in respect of the very same subject properties on the file

of the Court of the learned III Additional District Judge, Guntur against

husband of plaintiff and defendant nos.1 & 5, wherein the plaintiff was added

as defendant no.4 after death of her husband and in the said suit defendant

no.5 claimed share in the property, being daughter of Immanuel and

ultimately the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 30.03.2009. It is

further mentioned in the said plaint that defendant no.1 filed a suit vide

O.S.No.38 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge,

Avanigadda against the plaintiff for partition of the property purchased by

Karra Sasi kumar (husband of plaintiff and son of defendant no.1).

11. The record discloses that the suit vide O.S.No.38 of 2007 was

transferred from the file of Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, Krishna District to

the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Repalle to be tried along

RC,J

CRP Nos. 1455, 1642 & 1705 of 2025

13

with O.S.No.68 of 2011, as per orders of this Court passed in TCMP No.323 of

2015, and consequent to transfer the suit vide O.S.No.38 of 2007 was

renumbered as O.S.No.114 of 2016.

12. The defendant no.1 while she was alive filed written statement in

the suit vide O.S.No.68 of 2011 contending that the Will dated 26.01.2006

propounded by the plaintiff said to have been executed by son of defendant

no.1 in favour of plaintiff is fabricated and that the properties were purchased

out of the income of the joint family.

13. Admittedly, there is no reference of the Will dated 25.12.1995 said

to have been executed by husband of defendant no.1 in her favour in the

original written statement.

14. However, in the additional written statement filed by defendant

no.1 it was mentioned that her husband executed Will dated 25.12.1995 in

her favour bequeathing all his properties. It is further mentioned therein that

though photocopy of the said Will was given to her counsel that filed the

written statement, he, by mistake, did not mention the existence of the Will in

the written statement.

15. The letter dated 09.06.2007 addressed by counsel of defendant

no.1, who appeared on her behalf in O.S.No.158 of 2001 on the file of the

RC,J

CRP Nos. 1455, 1642 & 1705 of 2025

14

Court of the learned III Additional District Judge, Guntur addressed to the

defendant no.1 states that all the documents pertaining to the properties

were taken away by son of defendant no.1 (husband of plaintiff) about 6 to

10 months prior to his death.

16. Admittedly, the said letter does not refer to Will dated 25.12.1995

said to have been executed by husband of defendant no.1 in her favour.

17. According to respondent no.1/plaintiff, during his lifetime her

husband maintained cordial relationship with his mother and all the

documents which are in the custody of her husband were handed over to his

mother and that she has no knowledge about the Will dated 25.12.1995.

18. From the material available on record and the contentions advanced

by the learned counsel for the parties before this Court as well as trial Court,

it is evident that the said Will was not filed in O.S.No.158 of 2001.

19. It is curious enough to note that in the written statement filed by

defendant no.1 in the suit in O.S.No.68 of 2011 there was no reference even

about the Will dated 25.12.1995 said to have been executed by her husband

in her favour. However, the same came to be mentioned in the additional

written statement along with clarification that though photocopy of the said

Will was given to her previous counsel, the same was not mentioned in the

RC,J

CRP Nos. 1455, 1642 & 1705 of 2025

15

written statement by oversight or mistake. So also in the written statement

filed by defendant no.5 there was no mention of Will dated 25.12.1995 but

the same was referred to in her additional written statement. Both the

additional written statements of defendant nos.1 & 5 were filed on

16.08.2017.

20. The above would indicate that the Will dated 25.12.1995 was not

filed in the suit in O.S.No.158 of 2001 filed by defendant no.2 (daughter-in-

law) of defendant no.1 for partition though production of the Will would be

beneficial to defendant no.1 and that the letter addressed by her counsel to

defendant no.1 did not bear any reference regarding the Will except stating

‘all the documents pertaining to the property’ and more particularly there was

no reference of Will in the written statements of defendant nos.1 & 5, but for

in their additional written statements. Therefore, as rightly observed by the

learned trial Judge, the theory of execution of Will by husband of defendant

no.1 in favour of defendant no.1 seems to be an afterthought innovation only

with an intention to mark the photo copy of the Will. In view of the suspicious

circumstances referred to supra, the learned trial Judge had rightly dismissed

the petition vide I.A.No.63 of 2023 filed under Order-XIII, Rule-1 CPC. The

RC,J

CRP Nos. 1455, 1642 & 1705 of 2025

16

said order does not require interference of this Court. Accordingly, CRP

No.1455 of 2025 deserves dismissal.

21. The petition vide I.A.No.64 of 2023 was filed to recall P.W.1 to elicit

the factum of having custody of original of Will dated 25.12.1995. The said

petition was dismissed offering reasons akin to the reasons given for

dismissing I.A.No.63 of 2023.

22. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) empowers a

court to recall a witness at any stage of a suit to clarify evidence, rather than

to allow parties to fill gaps or re-examine witnesses. It is a discretionary,

exceptional power used to remove ambiguities or clarify issues, not for routine

re-examination.

23. Here, the endeavour of defendant no.5 is to elicit from P.W.1 with

regard to possession of original Will dated 25.12.1995 with her. Further,

according to the learned counsel for defendant no.5, the purpose of recall is

only to confront her with photocopy of the Will dated 25.12.1995 and elicit

from her the existence and suppression of the original Will. Since the petition

filed under Order XIII, Rule-1 CPC was dismissed in view of the suspicious

circumstances, recalling P.W.1 regarding existence and suppression of the

document which is held to be suspicious, would become redundant.

RC,J

CRP Nos. 1455, 1642 & 1705 of 2025

17

The learned trial Judge is right is dismissing the petition filed for recall of

P.W.1. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition vide CRP No.1642 of 2025 is also

to be dismissed.

24. Now coming to CRP No.1705 of 2023, both the suits were filed for

partition of the properties. O.S.No.68 of 2011 was filed by respondent

no.1/plaintiff for partition of the joint family properties of Karra Immanuel

contending that he inherited the joint family properties and his two sons used

to assist him in running Ayurvedic Vaidhyasala and with the income derived

by them from agricultural operations and Ayurvedic Vaidhyasala purchased

the plaint schedule properties and she being wife of predeceased son is

entitled for 1/4

th

share therein. In the said suit the defendant no.1 filed

additional written statement contending that her husband executed a Will

dated 25.12.1995 bequeathing all the properties in her favour. Whereas

O.S.No.114 of 2016 is filed by defendant no.1 for partition of the properties

stand in the name of her son, wherein the first respondent, who was first

defendant in the said suit, took up a defence that her husband executed a

Will dated 26.01.2006 bequeathing the plaint schedule properties in

O.S.No.114 of 2016 in her favour.

RC,J

CRP Nos. 1455, 1642 & 1705 of 2025

18

25. Admittedly, the subject matter of both the suits is different and

distinct. One suit is filed for partition of the joint family properties, whereas

another suit is filed by mother for partition of the properties stand in the

name of son.

26. The defendant no.1 of the respective suits is relying on the Will

executed by their husband in support of their claim.

27. The plaint schedule properties are different and distinct and the

issues involved in the suits are also different, except that both the suits are

filed for partition.

28. Therefore, consolidation of the suits would lead to unnecessary

confusion and it would be justified if both the suits are tried simultaneously

rather than jointly. Therefore, the orders impugned in CRP No.1705 of 2025

are liable to be set aside.

29. In the result, CRP No.1455 of 2025 is dismissed confirming the

order dated 05.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.65 of 2023 in O.S.No.68 of 2011.

There shall be no order as to costs.

30. In the result, CRP No.1642 of 2025 is dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

RC,J

CRP Nos. 1455, 1642 & 1705 of 2025

19

31. In the result, CRP No.1705 of 2025 is allowed, setting aside the

order dated 05.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.90 of 2024 in O.S.No.68 of 2011.

Both the suits shall be tried simultaneously rather than by clubbing together.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________

JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

8

TH

May, 2026. RR