ANNAMACHARYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST Vs. NUKA BANGI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Annamacharya Educational Trust, represented by its Chairman, the first respondent in I.A.No.1159 of 2004 in O.S.No.27 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa and three others, respondents 2 to 4 in the said application, preferred the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid application was moved by respondents 4 and 5 herein, Panjam Saralamma and Naga Prudhvipathi Reddy, under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') to add them as plaintiffs 4 and 5 as they are the legal representatives of the second plaintiff and permit them to further prosecute the suit. The learned Judge, on an appreciation of the evidence available before the Court, ultimately allowed the application, by order, dated 17.08.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is preferred.

(2.) This Court on 21.09.2005, ordered notice before admission and Sri Venugopal Reddy, who had lodged a Caveat on behalf of respondents 1,4 and 5, had taken notice representing these parties and subsequent thereto the learned counsel also entered appearance on behalf of the other contesting respondents.

(3.) Sri A.K.Narasimha Rao, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioners had pointed out that this is a clear case where though the second plaintiff died long back, after a memo was filed into Court, some death certificate was brought into existence to show as though the present L.R. application is being filed within time. The learned counsel also would maintain that this is a case of virtually playing fraud, only with a view to get over the limitation and the same cannot be permitted. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the reasons which had been recorded by the learned Judge and had pointed out that on the strength of just chief-examination affidavits, findings had been recorded relating to the validity of the Will, which may have to be ultimately decided in the main suit and hence, the very approach adopted by the learned Judge in this regard, cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also points out that especially in a case where a party is claiming to be a legatee under a Will to come on record, the Court is expected to be more conscious since it will be depriving the natural course of succession and hence recording a positive finding, prima facie, relating to the validity of the Will while deciding the L.R. application, cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also would contend that the second plaintiff never died on 16.06.2004 at Railway Koduru and the death certificate relied upon by the proposed legal representatives is not genuine, but was brought into existence only with a view to get over the period of limitation. The learned counsel also pointed out to the conduct of the parties, in taking such a stand after a memo had been filed into the Court. The learned counsel also pointed out to the relevant findings recorded by the learned Judge in general and the findings recorded at paras 14 and 18 in particular and would comment that in the light of Exs.X1 to X4 and the evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3, such findings though recorded at the interlocutory stage, cannot be sustained, since those findings would cause serious prejudice to the revision petitioners.