THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.772 OF 2007 17-06-2010 Between: Ch.Satyanarayana ..petitioner Vs. Ch.Siva Babu and others …Respondents. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.772 OF 2007 ORAL ORDER This is a misconceived revision by an indolent defendant No.5 in O.S.No.1021 of 2004. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the suit for partition of the suit schedule properties consisting of five items of dry land situated at Vengalayapalem Village, Perecherla Mandal, Guntur District into seven (7) equal shares and to allot one share to each plaintiff. The revision petitioner as the 5th defendant filed his written statement on 03-08-2003 contending that during the life time of plaintiff’s father-Ch.Nagaiah, he had purchased Ac.1.50 cents of land in the name of the first plaintiff and got it registered in the first plaintiff’s name, who was below 20 years of age at that time and on the death of Ch.Nagaiah, defendant Nos.1 to 4 and first plaintiff had taken an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the defendant No.5 on 19-05-1997 and executed a possessory agreement for an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in favour of the defendant No.5 and handed over the link documents. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial court on 10-08- 2004 framed the issue, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the preliminary decree for partition of the suit schedule properties into 7 equal shares and to allot one such share to each of the plaintiffs. The trial of the suit was commenced on 25-04-2005 and the plaintiff’s evidence was closed on 22-07-2005. The evidence on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 was closed on 03-10-2005. As the revision petitioner failed to lead evidence, his evidence was closed on 02.11.2005 and the suit was posted for arguments. On 10-11-2005 the defendant No.5 applied for reopening of the suit and for his chief examination. He was examined as DW.4 and he examined two other witnesses DW.5 and DW.6 to prove two documents Exs.B1 and B-2 whereunder the defendant No.5 claimed that there was already a partition of the suit schedule property. As Exs.B-1 and B-2 were liable to stamp duty, these documents were sent to RDO for impounding and after receipt from the revenue officer these were marked on 17-08-2006 and the defendant’s evidence in toto was closed on 22-08-2006 and the suit posted for arguments. At this stage, the revision petitioner/ defendant No.5 filed two applications viz., I.A.No.1789 of 2006 and 1790 of 2006 for reopening the suit for framing of additional issues and to frame additional issues in the suit as to whether there was prior partition between the defendants and whether Exs.B-3 to B-6 establish such partition and also whether Exs.B-1 and B-2 are genuine or false. The court below rejected these applications holding that since the suit is one for partition of the properties, the primary question involved is whether the schedule property is the joint family property and continued in the joint possession of the family members and whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition with the appropriate share and the relevancy and proof of Exs.B-1 to B- 6 could be gone into while assessing the evidence at the time of deciding the suit and no necessity existed for framing an additional issue. This court discerns no perversity in the conclusion of the court below warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. There are no merits. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 17th JUNE 2010 TSNR