PAMPANA VENUGOPAL Vs. PAMPANA APPALA VENKATA UDAYA BHASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P. Veerraju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

(2.) The petitioners herein are the children of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioners filed O.S.No.29 of 2019 before the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, for partition of the properties described in the schedule to the suit. The case of the petitioners was that the suit schedule property was joint family property and should be split into three parts, one part being allotted to the petitioners and one part each being allotted to respondent Nos.1 and 2.

(3.) The suit is said to have been filed on the ground that the petitioners had come to know that the 2nd respondent was proposing to sell away the property mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement denying these allegations. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent filed I.A.No.615 of 2019 for filing an additional written statement. In this additional written statement, the 2nd respondent sought to bring on record an agreement of sale said to have been entered into with the 3rd respondent herein. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on 22/8/2023. This application was dismissed by the trial Court, on the ground that the 2nd respondent, having denied any intention to sell the property, in her written statement, cannot be permitted to come up with a contradictory plea that she had already entered into an agreement of sale with the 3rd respondent.