LAWS(APH)-2023-3-116

CHAMARTHI MAHESWARA RAJU Vs. CHAMARTHI SATHYANARAYANA RAJU

Decided On March 16, 2023
Chamarthi Maheswara Raju Appellant
V/S
Chamarthi Sathyanarayana Raju Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The orders impugned in these Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the common orders dtd. 20/1/2023 passed in I.A.Nos. 8 and 9 of 2022 in O.S.No.32 of 2009 by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi and hence both these Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by these common orders.

(2.) The petitioner in both these revision petitions is the 2nd defendant, the 1strespondent is the plaintiff and the respondent Nos. 2 to 31 are the defendants 1,3 to 31 in O.S.No.32 of 2009 filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff for partition. The petitioner/2nddefendant filed both the interlocutory applications one is to reopen the evidence of the 2nd defendant and the other is to issue summons to Y. Eswara Prasad Reddy, who is one of the attestors of the alleged will dtd. 10/11/2008, to give evidence on his behalf with regard to the alleged will deed dtd. 10/11/2008 propounded by the 5thdefendant, contending that the 5th defendant has created the Will and codicil with a view to evade the legitimate share allottable to the petitioner as well as other coparceners.Non-examination of the witness now proposed is neither willful nor intentional and examination of the witness is very much essential, else much and irreparable loss and hardship would be caused to the petitioner and moreover no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the respondents.

(3.) The 5threspondent/ 5thdefendant resisted the claim by filing counter, contending that, the petitions are vexatious and existence of the will was mentioned in the written statements of the defendant Nos.1 and 7 in the year 2009 itself and though the plaint was amended several times, the petitioner/2nddefendant did not file any additional written statement nor did the plaintiff file rejoinder. The petitioner has adduced entire evidence on his behalf and the 5thdefendant has also adduced his evidence in proof of the wills and codicils as required by law and when the matter is coming for arguments, after lapse of long time, these petitions were filed. There are no valid grounds mentioned in the petitions and hence prayed to dismiss both the petitions.