INDUKURI VENKAYYA Vs. DANDU KAMALA KUMARL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed against the order passed in IA No. 444/94 in O.S. No. 17/94 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tadepalligudem. The suit was filed for partition of the suit scheduled properties by Indukuri Venkayya represented by G.P.A. holder Dandu Ramaraju. The defendants filed petition contending that the plaintiff is stuck with paralysis and he is not able to move from the bed. Further, the plaintiff is not in sound state of mind. In such state, the plaintiff could not have execu ted G.P.A. in favour of Dandu Ramaraju. They also contended that the will alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff is also a got up document because the plaintiff is unconscious and bed-ridden. To prove that the plaintiff is not in sound state of mind and he is bed-ridden, they wanted the plaintiff to be called to the Court. This was resisted by the G.P.A. holder stating that General Power of Attorney was executed in sound state of mind and that the plaintiff was able to understand the nature of the document which the plaintiff executed.

(2.) Considering the rival contentions, the learned Sub-Judge held that in the interests of justice and to meet the ends of justice, he directed the plaintiff to be present in the Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the burden of proof of the genuineness of G.P.A is on the plaintiff. The question whether G.P.A. executed by the plaintiff in favour of Dandu Ramaraju was valid or not is to be gone into in the main trial. If the plaintiff failed to establish the genuineness of the G.P.A., the suit itself goes. The question whether the G.P.A. is executed by the plaintiff in the sound state of mind etc. cannot be gone into at this stage. The plaintiff cannot be directed to appear before the Court even before the defendants filed the written statements.