Prl .Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUDIVADA Present: Sri I.SRINIVASA MURTHY, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada. Thursday, this the 21st day of January, 2021. IA.No.134/2020 in IA.317/2019 In OS.12/2016 Between 1.Siddamsetti Venkateswaramma (died) 2. Kanakonda Anji Babu, S/o. late Basavaiah, Hindu, 40 years, business, R/o.Pamarru. …Petitioners/ Plaintiffs And 1.Mutyala Kanaka Durga, W/o.Gopala Rao, Hindu, aed 50 years, Business, R/o.Arandalpeta, Pamarru Mandal, Krishna District. 2.Mutyala Naga Venkata Siva Prasad, S/o.Gopala Rao, Hindu, Aged 32 years, Business, R/o.Arandalpeta, Pamarru Mandal, …..Respondents/ Krishna District. Defendants This petition has come up on 07.01.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.V.R.K.Reddy, advocate for petitioners and of Sri Gowri Rambabu, advocate for respondent and upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following: ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner in IA.317/19, who is a 3rd party, under Order 7 Rule 14-A CPC for granting leave of the court to file registration extract of registered Will dt.22.07.2013 and the death certificate of the 1st petitioner dt.26.06.2018. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: 1st petitioner filed the suit against the respondent for recovery of the possession of the plaint schedule property and for other reliefs and subsequently, he filed a petition to implead him as the legal heir of the deceased 1st petitioner and along with the said petition he filed photo copy of registered Will and photo copy of the birth certificate of the 1st petitioner and thereafter 2 he obtained a registration extract of the Will from the office of the Sub- Registrar, Pamarru and, therefore, the documents are very much necessary. 3. Respondents filed their counter opposing the petition and, inter alia, alleging that there is no relationship between the 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner and if really 2nd petitioner is the husband of the deceased 1st petitioner, the said fact would have been mentioned in the said Will allegedly executed by the 1st petitioner. It is further alleged that the said Will is created by the 2nd petitioner herein and the original Will is not filed into court and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner can be granted leave to file the documents sought to be produced and whether the documents can be received as prayed for by the petitioner? POINT: 6. As seen from the record, the suit is filed by the 1st petitioner for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and for other reliefs. The record further shows that the petitioner herein filed IA.317/2019 under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC in which he claimed that the deceased 1st petitioner executed a Will dt.22.07.2013 in his favour and in favour of one Siddamsetti Mahesh, who is her nephew, and that 1st petitioner is the wife of the 2nd petitioner and on her death, the right to sue survives in the suit and, therefore, 2nd petitioner is entitled to continue the suit as per the Will dt.22.07.2013. 7. The present petition is filed only to receive the registration extract of the Will and the death certificate of the 1st petitioner. The contention of the respondents that original Will is not produced into court and, therefore, the registration extract cannot be received, cannot 3 be gone into at this stage. Respondents can take such an objection at the time of marking the documents in IA.No.317/2019, which is filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC. It is no doubt true that in the registration extract of the Will now sought to be produced, there is no whisper that 2nd petitioner is the husband of the 1st petitioner. However, on that ground this court cannot reject the present petition which is filed only to receive the documents. The said facts can be gone into in the main petition in IA.317/2019 filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC. 8. Since, the documents sought to be produced are the certified copy of the Will and the death certificate, this court is of the considered opinion that those documents can be received subject to proof and relevancy. It is needless to mention that respondent is at liberty to take objections if any at the time of marking of those documents in IA.317/2019, in which the 2nd petitioner herein has been leading evidence to prove the Will. Point is answered accordingly. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed with the above observations. No costs. Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.III), transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this 21st day of January, 2021. Sd/-I.Srinivasa Murthy Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada. Appendix of Evidence NIL Sd/-I.Srinivasa Murthy PSCJ/GDV..

Load more