GUNAMMA Vs. CHANDRAMMA SOLE PLAINTIFF DIED PER LRS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 16-7-2001 in IA No. 696 of 2000 in OS No. 111 of. 1994 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

(2.) One Chandramma instituted OS No. 111 of 1994 against the revision petitioner and 5th respondent as defendants seeking partition of her share in the plaint schedule properties. During the pendency of the suit, the said Chandramma died. Respondents 1 ' to 4 claiming to be the children and husband of the said Chandramma have filed IA No. 696 of 2000 to bring themselves on record as the legal representatives of the said Chandramma. The revision petitioner and the 5th respondent opposed the application contending that the 4th respondent is not the husband and respondents 1 to 3 are not the children of Chandramma. The learned Judge holding that the first petitioner and 5th respondent who admitted that 4th petitioner is the husband of Chandramma cannot now be heard to say that he is not the husband, allowed the petition. The order is being disputed in this revision.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner placing strong reliance on Gangupati Savitramma and Anr. v. Katuri Ramadevi and Ors., 1991 (1) ALT 453, contended that since there is a dispute as to the legal representatives of Chandramma the Court below without giving an opportunity of leading evidence to the revision petitioner and 5th respondent on the question as to whether the respondents 1 to 4 and legal representatives of Chandramma or not was in error in allowing the petition.