ADDEPALLI HANUMANTHARAO Vs. DEVARAPALLI NARAYANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed by the third plaintiff in O.S.51/72 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ongole questioning the impugned orders dated 20-2-1995 passed in I.A. 39/95 allowing the said petition thereby striking off the evidence of PWs. 1 to 7 and Exs. A-l to A-31 from the record.

(2.) The above said suit was originally filed by one Venkata NarasimhaMurthy, who was the sole plaintiff, for setting aside certain sale deeds said to have been executed by his General Power of Attorney Holder relating to some of his properties. During the pendency of the said suit, the sole plaintiff died on 25-3-1978. Thereupon one T. Sankaraiah and one D. Venkata Swami, who do not belong to the family of the deceased plaintiff, filed I.A.1380/78 for adding themselves as legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff on the basis of a Will said to have been executed in their favour by the deceased plaintiff. The said petition was allowed on 29-9-78 and they were brought on record as second and third plaintiffs in the suit. Some evidence was let in on their behalf during the trial of the suit and it consisted of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 7 and Exs. A-l to A-31. During the pendency of the trial of the suit, the daughter of the deceased plaintiff by name Vedavathi filed I.A.512/80 for adding herself as legal representative of the deceased sole plaintiff and for striking off the names of 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs, who were already added as per the orders in I.A.No. 1380/78. The said petition was allowed on 2-8-85. Some of the contesting defendants questioned the said orders by filing C.R.P. 2605/85, which was, however, dismissed by this Court. Thereupon, she was added as second plaintiff in the suit by deleting the names of T. Sankaraiah and D.Venkata Swami who were earlier added as second and third plaintiffs. Subsequently Vedavathi also died in 1986 and her husband, who is the present revision petitioner, filed I.A.1617/86 for adding himself as the legal representative of the deceased Vedavathi who was already brought on record as second plaintiff in the suit. The said petition was allowed and he was added as third plaintiff in the suit as legal representative of the deceased second plaintiff, who was his wife. Further trial was conducted and the newly added third plaintiff was examined as P.W.8 and Exs. A-32 to A-46 were marked by way of further evidence. The trial of the suit was completed in 1994 and it was posted for arguments. At that stage, the defendants 22,25 and 26 filed I.A.39/95 requesting the Court to strike off the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 7 and Exs. A-l to A-31 from the record on the ground that such evidence was let in on behalf of the plaintiffs in the suit during the period when T. Sankaraiah and D. Venkata Swami were figuring as second and third plaintiffs as legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff; that subsequently their names were struck off and the daughter of the original sole plaintiff was brought on record as second plaintiff; that such evidence adduced on behalf of the above two persons is not legal evidence inasmuch as they had no locus standi and as their names were subsequently struck off and the daughter of the original plaintiff came on record as second plaintiff, and that, therefore, such evidence cannot be taken advantage of by the newly added legal representative of the deceased sole plaintiff. The lower Court agreed with such contention of the defendants and allowed I.A.39/95 by the impugned orders dated 20-2-95. Questioning the said orders, the present revision is filed by the third plaintiff in the suit.

(3.) Both the Counsel are heard.