APHC010324712025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3299]

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1768/2025

Between:

1. MAGANTI MANJULA, W/O. SRINIVASA RAO AGED 45

YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, RESIDENT OF VINJARAMPADU

VILLAGE PEDAPARUPUDI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. PALLAPOTHU NARAYANA RAO, S/O. SUBBA DASU AGED

40 YEARS. CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF VINJARAMPADU

VILLAGE PEDAPARUPUDI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

2. PALLAPOTHU JAHNAVI, D/O. NARAYANA RAO AGED 13

YEARS. STUDENT, RESIDENT OF VINJARAMPADU

VILLAGE, PEDAPARUPU DI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT

REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN

PALLAPOTHU NARAYANA RAO.

3. PALLAPOTHU AKNKSHA, D/O. NARAYANA RAO AGED 10

YEARS, STUDENT, RESIDENT OF VINJARAMPADU

VILLAGE, PEDAPARUPUDI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT

(RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY

HER FATHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN PALLAPOTHU

NARAYANA RAO). NO RELIEF CLAIMED AGAINST TO

RESPONDENTS IN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION AS

NOTICE WAS NOT YET ORDERED BEFORE THE TRAIL

COURT.

2

(RNT,J

C.R.P.No.1768 of 2025)

...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 set aside the Order dated 13.05.2025

passed in G.L. No. 826/2025 in O.S.No. Of 2025 on the file of

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Gudiwada, Krishna District

and may kindly direct the trail court register the suit filed in G.L. No.

826/2025 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) at

Gudiwada, Krishna District in the interest of justice and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

3

(RNT,J

C.R.P.No.1768 of 2025)

The Court made the following:

ORDER :

Heard Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of

money based on a promissory note allegedly executed by respondent

No.1/defendant No.1. He also impleaded the minor daughters of

defendant No.1, as defendant Nos.2 and 3 contending that the 1

st

defendant borrowed the money representing that he constituted joint

family with defendant Nos.2 & 3 and being kartha of the joint family,

he (defendant No.1) borrowed the money and as defendant Nos.2 & 3

were also liable for the debt incurred by defendant No.1.

3. The learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gudivada, by order dated 13.05.2025 in G.L. No.826 of 2025,

returned the plaint at the stage of registration, questioning the liability

of defendant Nos.2 and 3 for the debt incurred by defendant No.1

under suit promissory note. The learned trial Court considered the

amended provisions of Section 6(4) of the Hindu Succession Act,

1956 (in short, "the Act") and opined that after the amendment of

2005, no court shall recognize the right of a creditor to proceed

against the son, grandson or great grandson of a debtor for debts

contracted by father, grandfather or great grandfather solely on the

4

(RNT,J

C.R.P.No.1768 of 2025)

ground of pious obligation and son, grandson, great grandson also

include daughter, granddaughter, great granddaughters.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit

was maintainable against defendant Nos.2 and 3 as well, in view of

the judgments of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Bhupatiraju

Sriram Raju v. Nadimpalli Pullam Raju

1 and the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh in Chandredatta v. Sanat Kumar

2, which were

cited before the learned trial Court and sought registration of the

plaint.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is

not in dispute that the suit promissory note was executed solely by

defendant No.1, but the question of maintainability of the suit against

defendant Nos.2 and 3, as also the applicability of Section 6(4) of the

Act, are the matters that fall within the domain of trial, and as such,

the Court, at the stage of registration, had no jurisdiction to adjudicate

upon those issues and refuse registration of the suit.

6. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused

the material on record.

1

AIR 1963 AP 403

2

Air 1973 MP 169

5

(RNT,J

C.R.P.No.1768 of 2025)

7. Section 6 (4) of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, as

amended reads as under :

Section 6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property :-

(1) On and from the commencement of the

Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), in a Joint

Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a

coparcener shall,―

(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right the same

manner as the son;

(b) have the same rights in the coparcenery property as she would

have had if she had been a son;

(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said

coparcenery property as that of a son, and any reference to a

Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a

reference to a daughter of a coparcener:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or

invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or

testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before

the 20th day of December, 2004.

(2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by

virtue of sub-section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of

coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding

anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being

in force, as property capable of being disposed of by her by

testamentary disposition.

(3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu

Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), his interest in

the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara

law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the

case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the

coparcenery property shall be deemed to have been divided as if

a partition had taken place and,―

(a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son;

6

(RNT,J

C.R.P.No.1768 of 2025)

(b) the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased

daughter, as they would have got had they been alive at the time

of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre-

deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter; and

(c) the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or

of a pre-deceased daughter, as such child would have got had he

or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to

the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son or a

pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be.

(4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession

(Amendment) Act, 2005, no court shall recognize any right to

proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for the

recovery of any debt due from his father, grand father or great-

grand father solely on the ground of the pious obligation under the

Hindu law, of such son, grandson or great- grandson to discharge

any such debt:

Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before the

commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005,

nothing contained in this subsection shall affect-

(a) the right of any creditor to proceed against the son,

grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or

(b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such

debt, and any such right or alienation shall be enforceable under

the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to the same

extent as it would have been enforceable as if the Hindu

Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 had not been enacted.

Explanation -For the purposes of clause (a), the expression "son",

"grandson" or "great- grandson" shall be deemed to refer to the

son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be, who was

born or adopted prior to the commencement of the Hindu

Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005."

7

(RNT,J

C.R.P.No.1768 of 2025)

8. Whether the liability is sought to be fastened upon

defendant Nos.2 & 3 on the basis of any pious obligation or not is a

question, which required determination only after the registration of

the suit, and framing of appropriate issues, during trial. Whether any

pious obligation would arise during the lifetime of defendant No.1,

would also be a relevant point. So, the question of applicability of

Section 6(4) of the Act requires consideration during trial. Further,

Section 6(4) of the Act does not impose a bar on the institution of the

suit. On fulfillment of the conditions under Section 6(4) of the Act, the

Court shall not recognize any such right under Section 6(4) and so, at

best the suit would be dismissed against defendant Nos.2 & 3. But,

that does not mean that the suit is not to be registered and not tried.

9. The suit is certainly maintainable against the 1

st

defendant, on the basis of the promissory note said to be executed by

him.

10. Additionally, the trial Court has the power in any suit to

direct deletion of a party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

11. In the considered view of this Court, the learned Trial

Court, has travelled beyond its jurisdiction by entering into the merits

of the maintainability of the claim against defendant Nos.2 and 3, at

the stage of registration of the suit and in refusing registration.

8

(RNT,J

C.R.P.No.1768 of 2025)

12. Issuance of notice to the respondents/defendants is

dispensed with, as the impugned order is refusal of registration of

suit.

13. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated

13.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior

Division), Gudivada, in G.L. No.826 of 2025 is set aside.

14. The original plaint shall be returned to the petitioner for

re-submission before the Court concerned, which shall register the

suit in accordance with law.

15. No order as to costs.

16. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any

view on the merits of the claim or the defence of the parties. The

observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the

issue of registration of the plaint.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,

shall also stand closed.

____________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

Date :25.07.2025.

Note :- L.R. Copy to be marked.

B/o

RPD.

9

(RNT,J

C.R.P.No.1768 of 2025)

117

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

(ALLOWED)

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1768 OF 2025

Date : 25.07.2025

Note :- L.R. Copy to be marked.

B/o

RPD..

10

(RNT,J

C.R.P.No.1768 of 2025)

*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1768 of 2025

% 25.07.2025

#1. Maganti Manjula

……Petitioner

And:

$ 1. Pallapothu Narayana Rao and

others.

….Respondents.

!Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu

^Counsel for the respondent/(s) : ---.

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. AIR 1963 AP 403

2. Air 1973 MP 169

11

(RNT,J

C.R.P.No.1768 of 2025)

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1768 of 2025

1. Maganti Manjula.

……Petitioner

And:

1. Pallapothu Narayana Rao and

others.

….Respondents.

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 25.07.2025

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be

Allowed to see the judgments? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked

to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair

Copy of the Judgment?

Yes/No

____________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J