Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Y.Bhaskara Rao vs K.Gangamma on 15 July, 2025
APHC010031571999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3397]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA
KRISHNA RAO
I.A.No.1/2016 (A.S.M.P.No.1990/2016),
I.A.No.1/2010 (A.S.M.P.No.1172/2010),
I.A.No.2/2010 (A.S.M.P.No.1173/2010)
and
I.A.No.3/2010 (A.S.M.P.No.1174/2010)
in
FIRST APPEAL NO: 238/1999
Between:
IA NO: 1 OF 2016(ASMP 1990 OF 2016
1. SMT. KOLUSU GANGAMMA (DIED PER LR)
2. KOMMA KANAKA CHINTAIAH
...PETITIONER/
PROPOSED PARTY RESPONDENT
AND
1. Y.BHASKARA RAO
2. YADAVAAREDDI SIVA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO
... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
IA NO: 1 OF 2016(ASMP 1990 OF 2016
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased implead the proposed petitioner as party / respondent and permit him
to contest main appeal as the legatee of deceased sole respondent Kolusu
Gangamma as otherwise i will be put to irreparabkle loss and injury
IA NO: 1 OF 2010 (ASMP 1172 OF 2010
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
condone the delay of 784 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement
cuased due to the death of the sole respondent Smt. Kolusu Gangamma in
the above appeal
IA NO: 2 OF 2010 (ASMP 1173 OF 2010
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
bring Legal representatives of deceased sole respondent Smt. Kolusu
Gangamma i.e., 1. Komma Vengamma 2. Dhimmila Ammaji and 3. Nerusu
Krishna Murthy on record as respondents 2 to 4 in the above appeal
IA NO: 3 OF 2010 (ASMP 1174 OF 2010
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the sole respondent in the
above appeal
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M RADHA KRISHNA, REPRESENTING K V SATYANARAYANA
Counsel for the Respondents:
P RAJA SEKHAR, REPRESENTING VAKATI VENKATA GNANUSHA
The Court made the following:
Common Order:
The petition in I.A.No.1/2016 (A.S.M.P.No.1990/2016) is filed by the
proposed party respondent, by name Komma Kanaka Chintaiah, under
Order I, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., with a prayer to permit him
to contest the main appeal as a legal representative of deceased sole
respondent as prayed in the affidavit of the petitioner.
2. The brief averments in the affidavit of the petitioner in I.A.No.1/2016
(A.S.M.P.No.1990/2016) are as follows:
The sole respondent, by name Kolusu Gangamma, was his maternal
grandmother‟s sister and her husband died long back in the year 1950 or 1951
and she had no children, as such she fostered him and got him educated also
and she had also love and affection towards him and during her life time, she
filed a suit against the appellants herein in O.S.No.11 of 1994 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge‟s Court, Machilipatnam, with a relief to cancel two
registered sale deeds dated 01-02-1991 and 16-02-1991 in favour of the
2nd defendant and on contest, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit in her
favour and the appellants herein preferred an appeal in the year 1999.
He further pleaded that during her life time in a sound, disposing state of mind
in the year 1991, she executed a registered Will dated 03-9-1991 before the
Sub Registrar, Vuyyuru, bequeathing her properties in his favour.
Subsequently, his maternal grandmother Kolusu Gangamma died on
30-11-2007 at Vuyyuru and he was not aware of the stage of proceedings
before the High Court and recently at about two years prior to filing of this
application, he came to know after the demise of his grandmother that the
matter is coming to bring legal representatives of his grandmother on record
and as such, as a legatee under the Will of his maternal grandmother Kolusu
Gangamma, he intends to come on record as a respondent in the main appeal
to contest the main appeal proceedings before this Court and that the
petitioner is constrained to file this application.
3. The petitioners/appellants in the main appeal filed the petition vide
I.A.No.1/2010 (A.S.M.P.No.1172/2010) with a specific prayer to bring the
proposed legal representatives as respondents 2 to 4 on record.
4. The case of the petitioners in I.A.No.1/2010 (A.S.M.P.No.1172/2010),
in brief, is as follows:
They are appellants in main appeal and they filed the appeal against
judgment and decree dated 05-10-1998 in O.S.No.11 of 1994 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge‟s Court, Machilipatnam and they came to know about three
weeks prior to filing of the application that sole respondent died intestate on
30-11-2007 leaving behind her Komma Vengamma, Dhimmila Ammaji and
Nerusu Krishna Murthy as Class-II legal heirs of Kolusu Gangamma and
Kolusu Gangamma died issueless and that they are constrained to file this
application to add Komma Vengamma, Dhimmila Ammaji and Nerusu Krishna
Murthy as respondents 2 to 4 in the main appeal.
5. The material on record reveals that the respondent herein filed the
suit in O.S.No.11 of 1994 on the file of Senior Civil Judge‟s Court,
Machilipatnam, with a prayer to cancel the registered sale deeds dated
02-01-1991 and 16-02-1991 in favour of the 2nd respondent and the said
suit was decreed in favour of the sole respondent/plaintiff in the suit.
The defendants in the said suit filed the present appeal. The sole respondent
Kolusu Gangamma died on 30-11-2007 and thereupon the appellants in the
appeal filed the application in I.A.No.2/2010 (A.S.M.P.No.1173/2010) for
bringing the children of her sister on record as respondents 2 to 4 in the main
appeal since she died issueless. While the matters stood thus, during the
pendency of the said application in I.A.No.1/2010 (A.S.M.P.No.1172/2010),
one Komma Kanaka Chintaiah filed I.A.No.1/2016 (A.S.M.P.No.1990/2016)
claiming that he was a fostered son and he also a grandson of late Kolusu
Gangamma‟s sister and a registered Will was executed by Kolusu Gangamma
bequeathing her properties before the Sub Registrar, Vuyyuru, in his favour
dated 02-5-2000. Since there is a dispute as to who are legal heirs to
Smt. Kolusu Gangamma, for determination of who are legal heirs of the sole
respondent, the matter was referred to the trial Court under Order XXII,
Rule 5 of C.P.C for conducting an enquiry and send a detailed report.
After completion of enquiry, the learned trial Judge/Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Machilipatnam sent a report with a finding that the propounder of the
Will Komma Kanaka Chintaiah is the sole legal representative of Kolusu
Gangamma. Thereupon, objections are filed by the appellants in the present
appeal, against the report of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Machilipatnam. Among those objections, some important objections raised by
the appellants are as follows:
(1) The learned trial Judge failed to understand the scope of enquiry
under Order XXII, Rule 5 of C.P.C.;
(2) The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam,
committed a serious error of law and fact in adopting the procedure, the same
is illegal and unknown to law; and
(3) The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, should
have seen that the proposed party Komma Kanaka Chintaiah is claiming to
be the fostered son of Smt. Kolusu Gangamma under a registered Will,
whereas the proposed legal representatives, who are respondents 2 to 4 in
I.A.No.1/2010 (A.S.M.P.No.1172/2010) are the legal representatives of
Kolusu Gangamma as being her sister‟s children as per rule of succession to
the estate of deceased female Hindu according to law and the trial Court
should have been more cautious in exercising its judicial discretion in fair and
transparent manner.
6. The person who can impeach the validity of a Will and in what
circumstances the Court should insist on strict compliance of the proof of Will
is clearly held by the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
in the case of Jalal and Sons and another v. Sita Bai (died) by L.Rs. and
others1. In the aforesaid case, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh
held as follows:
“14. … … … When a Will is relied on in support of the right to property, in the
absence of any other Will, nothing prevents the Court to conclusively
presume that the Will is last testament of the deceased testator. It is
a different thing whether the Will is required to be proved or not. When the
validity of the Will is in question and challenged the propounder of the Will is
required to prove the Will in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act
and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. Ordinarily, the persons with
limited penumbral right to property are treated as strangers and cannot be
allowed to question the validity of the Will. … … …”
In the case on hand, the appellants contend that the proposed
respondents 2 to 4 in I.A.No.1/2010 (A.S.M.P.No.1172/2010) are the children
of Kolusu Gangamma‟s sister and they are Class-II heirs. The propounder of
the alleged Will is claiming that the sole respondent Kolusu Gangamma is his
maternal grandmother‟s sister and Kolusu Gangamma had no children and
she fostered him.
1
2001 (2) ALD 547
7. The law is well settled in this regard in a catena of judgments of
various High Courts and the Apex Court:
“Determination of the question as to who is legal representative of
deceased plaintiff or defendant under Order XXII, Rule 5 of Code of Civil
Procedure is only for the purpose of bringing legal representatives on
record for conducting of those legal proceedings only and does not
operate as res judicata and inter-se dispute between rival legal
representatives has to be independently tried and decided in probate
proceedings.”
In the case on hand, on application filed by alleged legatee of the Will,
by name Komma Kanaka Chintaiah, in I.A.No.1/2016 (A.S.M.P.
No.1990/2016), the matter had been referred to the learned trial
Judge/Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, to conduct an enquiry and
the learned trial Judge, after issuing notices to all the parties, concluded the
enquiry and sent a report to this Court with a finding that the propounder of the
Will, by name Komma Kanaka Chintaiah, who is the petitioner in
I.A.No.1/2016 (A.S.M.P. No.1990/2016) is the sole legal representative of the
deceased Kolusu Gangamma. The appellants herein opposed the said
finding given by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam.
The appellants herein are third parties to the family of late Kolusu Gangamma
and they are no way concerned with the family of late Kolusu Gangamma.
The appellants herein contended that since Kolusu Gangamma died
issueless, Class-II heirs of late Kolusu Gangamma, by name Komma
Vengamma, Dhimmila Ammaji and Nerusu Krishna Murthy have to be brought
on record as legal representatives of deceased Kolusu Gangamma. Here, the
petitioner/proposed respondent in I.A.No.1/2016 (A.S.M.P. No.1990/2016)
Komma Kanaka Chintaiah, who is claiming as legatee under the Will, is not
a third party and he is none other than the grandson of Kolusu Gangamma‟s
sister. The report of the learned trial Judge/Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Machilipatnam, goes to show that he sent notices to all the parties concerned
but none appeared except the petitioner in I.A.No.1/2016 (A.S.M.P.
No.1990/2016) Komma Kanaka Chintaiah. Therefore, it is clear that the
proposed legal representatives as arrayed by the appellants in I.A.No.1/2010
(A.S.M.P.No.1172/2010) have not raised any objection against the alleged
Will said to have been executed by Kolusu Gangamma in favour of Komma
Kanaka Chintaiah.
8. The learned counsel for appellants would contend that the learned
trial Judge failed to understand the scope of enquiry under Order XXII, Rule 5
of C.P.C and the learned trial Judge committed a serious error in adopting
the procedure of conducting enquiry, the same is illegal and unknown to law.
The report sent by the learned trial Judge/Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Machilipatnam, clearly goes to show that after issuing notices to all the
parties, he conducted the enquiry and examined four witnesses and seven
documents are marked as Exs.A-1 to A-7 and the original Wills are also
marked as Exs.A-1 and A-2 by the learned trial Judge. The learned trial
Judge in his report held as follows:
“Notices issued to all the parties to their addresses as per the record by
registered post, among them proposed petitioner in A.S.M.P.1990/2016 in
A.S.238/1999 Komma Kanaka Chinthaiah alone present. The notice of
Yadavareddy Bhaskara Rao and his son Yadavareddy Siva Venkata Krishna
Rao who is unsound mind, was returned with endorsement that „expired and
returned to the sendor‟. The notices sent to Komma Vengamma and
Dimmela Ammaji were served but they did not turn up to the Court. Notice of
Nerusu Krishna Murthy was returned with endorsement that „person expired
and returned to sendor‟. … … …”
Therefore, the learned trial Judge, after issuing notices to all the parties
concerned in both these applications, conducted an enquiry as per the
procedure prescribed under Order XXII, Rule 5 of C.P.C.
9. The law is well settled that conducting an enquiry under Order XXII,
Rule 5 of C.P.C is only for the purpose of bringing legal representatives on
record, for conducting those legal proceedings only and does not operate as
res judicata and the inter-se dispute in between the rival legal representatives,
if any, has to be independently tried and decided in a separate proceedings.
Here, the appellants are not rival legal representatives of late Kolusu
Gangamma, they are third parties to the family of late Kolusu Gangamma.
The so-called arrayed proposed respondents as shown by the appellants in
I.A.No.1/2010 (A.S.M.P. No.1172/2010) have not raised any objection on the
enquiry conducted by the learned trial Judge or also not raised any objections
against the report of the learned trial Judge. In fact, after filing the application
vide I.A.No.1/2010 (A.S.M.P.No.1172/2010), this Court has issued notices to
the proposed respondents as shown by the appellants in I.A.No.1/2010
(A.S.M.P. No.1172/2010), dated 05-7-2010 and that the said proposed parties
as shown by the appellants are having knowledge about the present appeal
proceedings, but they did not raise any objection against the report submitted
by the learned trial Judge/Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam.
10. The learned counsel for appellants would contend that the right to
sue survives and when two sets of parties are claiming to be the legal
representatives of the deceased through testate and intestate succession, it is
desirable to implead both sets of parties on record to represent the estate of
the deceased. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for appellants
is not acceptable because here two sets of parties are not claiming to be the
legal representatives of the deceased Kolusu Gangamma. In fact, another
alleged set of the parties as contended by the appellants though they are
having knowledge about the case proceedings, they have not brought to the
notice of the Court that they are being Class-II heirs of late Kolusu
Gangamma. The so-called proposed Class-II legal representatives as shown
as proposed parties in I.A.No.1/2010 (A.S.M.P.No.1172/2010) have not raised
any objection and they have also not pleaded that they intend to come on
record as legal representatives of the deceased Kolusu Gangamma. In fact,
the aforesaid suggestion has to be suggested by the learned counsel for
appellants before opting the procedure under Order XXII, Rule 5 of C.P.C by
this Court. As noticed supra, the alleged legatee under the Will filed the
application in the year 2016, that too after a lapse of nine years, the appellants
cannot suggest to bring both sets of parties as legal representatives of the
deceased, that too after referring the matter to the learned trial Judge under
Order XXII, Rule 5 of C.P.C and after receipt of the report by this Court from
the learned trial Judge. Moreover, the purpose of bringing the legal
representatives on record is limited for conducting the present legal
proceedings only. It is also made clear that this Court is not settling the
inter-se dispute between the alleged rival legal representatives as alleged by
the appellants in the present appeal. In fact, the alleged Class-II legal heirs of
late Kolusu Gangamma, as stated by the appellants, have not raised any
objection against the report of the learned trial Judge. In fact, if there is any
inter-se dispute between the legal representatives of late Kolusu Gangamma,
that has to be independently tried and decided in separate proceedings but
not in the appeal suit proceedings.
11. The learned counsel for appellants placed a reliance on Uma v.
M/s. Salem Sowdambiga Finance, Rep. by the Managing Partner & Ors. 2.
In the aforesaid case, the High Court of Madras held as follows:
“25. Coming to the contention that it is not open to a stranger to challenge
a Will, it is to be stated that the said principle is based upon the theory of
caveatable interest and is mostly applicable to proceedings for the grant of
Probate or Letters of Administration. But even there, it is always open to
a person, who would otherwise be entitled to inherit the property, to challenge
the same. In the present case, if the Will goes, the judgment-debtors would
succeed to the property and the decree holder would become entitled to bring
it to sale. The prohibition for a stranger to challenge a Will, arises out of two
fundamental aspects viz., (i) the respect that is due to the last wish of the
Testator and (ii) the acceptance of such last wish by persons who would have
otherwise inherited the property. When the last wish of the Testator was not
actually to lay down the method of devolution, but simply to save his property
from the clutches of a third party-creditor, the Court can always pierce the veil
and find out the true intention. To this limited extent, a challenge by
a stranger can always be entertained, since it is not actually a challenge to
the method of devolution indicated in the Will, but to the very purpose of such
disposition.”
2
2009(1) LW 730
The facts in the aforesaid case relates to a civil revision petition filed
against the orders passed under Order XXII, Rule 5 and Section 59 of C.P.C.,
whereas the facts in the present case are that the deceased sole respondent
Kolusu Gangamma filed the suit against the appellants for cancellation of two
registered sale deeds said to have been executed in favour of the appellant
and she succeeded in the trial Court and against which, the present appeal
has been filed by the appellants. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the
aforesaid case is not at all applicable to the present case.
12. The learned counsel for appellants placed another reliance
on Jaladi Suguna (Deceased) through L.Rs. v. Satya Sai Central Trust 3.
In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court held as follows:
“15. Filing an application to bring the legal representatives on record, does
not amount to bringing the legal representatives on record. When an LR
application is filed, the court should consider it and decide whether the
persons named therein as the legal representatives, should be brought on
record to represent the estate of the deceased. Until such decision by the
court, the persons claiming to be the legal representatives have no right to
represent the estate of the deceased, nor prosecute or defend the case.
If there is a dispute as to who is the legal representative, a decision should be
rendered on such dispute. Only when the question of legal representative is
determined by the court and such legal representative is brought on record,
can it be said that the estate of the deceased is represented.
The determination as to who is the legal representative under Order 22 Rule
5 will of course be for the limited purpose of representation of the estate of
the deceased, for adjudication of that case. Such determination for such
limited purpose will not confer on the person held to be the legal
representative, any right to the property which is the subject-matter of the
suit, vis-à-vis other rival claimants to the estate of the deceased.”
In the case of Jaladi Suguna (3 supra), the Apex Court further held as
follows:
“The provisions of Order 22 Rules 4 and 5 CPC are mandatory. When
a respondent in an appeal dies, and the right to sue survives, the legal3
(2008) 8 SCC 521
representatives of the deceased respondent have to be brought on record
before the court can proceed further in the appeal. If there is a dispute as to
who is the legal representative, a decision should be rendered on such
dispute. For this purpose the High Court could, as in fact it did, refer the
question to a subordinate court under the proviso to Order 22 Rule 5 CPC,
to secure findings. After getting the findings, it ought to have decided that
question, and permitted the person(s) who are held to be the legal
representative(s) to come on record. Only then there would be
representation of the estate of the deceased respondent in the appeal.”
In the case of Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj (Died) Through LRs.
v. Shyam Lal Chauhan4, the Apex Court held as follows:
“7. Proviso to Rule 5 does not say that the Appellate Court can direct the
subordinate court to decide the question as to who would be the legal
representative, it only provides that the Appellate Court can direct the
subordinate court to try the question and return the records to the Appellate
Court, along with the evidence and the subordinate court has then to send
a report in the form of a reasoned opinion based on evidence recorded, upon
which the final decision has to be made ultimately by the Appellate Court,
after considering all relevant material. While dealing with the report sent by
the subordinate court under Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC, the Appellate Court may
consider the findings of the subordinate court and then give its reasons
before reaching any conclusion. … … …”
In the case on hand, the appellants filed the application in I.A.No.1/2010
(A.S.M.P.No.1172/2010) to bring Komma Vengamma, Dhimmila Ammaji and
Nerusu Krishna Murthy being Class-II legal heirs of Kolusu Gangamma as
legal representatives of sole respondent in the main appeal. Whereas the
proposed petitioner, who is an alleged legatee under the Will, filed the
application in I.A.No.1/2016 (A.S.M.P.No.1990/2016) and those alleged
registered Wills dated 03-9-1991 and 02-5-2000 are much prior to filing of the
petition by the petitioner in I.A.No.1/2016 (A.S.M.P.No.1990/2016). This Court
opted the procedure under Order XXII, Rule 5 of C.P.C and referred the
matter to the learned trial Judge for conducting an enquiry and send a report.
4
2024 SCC Online SC 683
The learned trial Judge after conducting enquiry, gave a finding that the
propounder of the Will, by name Komma Kanaka Chintaiah i.e., the petitioner
in I.A.No.1/2016 (A.S.M.P.No.1990/2016) is the sole legal representative of
the deceased Kolusu Gangamma. None of the relations nor any other family
members of Kolusu Gangamma have raised any objection for conducting
enquiry by the learned trial Judge and the so-called arrayed proposed
respondents as stated by the appellants, Komma Vengamma, Dhimmila
Ammaji and Nerusu Krishna Murthy have not raised any objection against the
report sent by the learned trial Judge. In fact, they are having much
knowledge about the proceedings of the present appeal suit.
13. The legal position in this regard is no more res integra, the same
has been well settled by the Apex Court by referring a catena of judgments of
the Apex Court. In the case of Varadarajan v. Kanakavalli,5 the Apex Court
also reiterated the decision of Suresh Kumar Bansal v. Krishna Bansal [(2010)
2 SCC 162]. In the said case in Suresh Kumar Bansal, it was held as follows:
“20. … … … determination of the question as to who is the legal
representative of the deceased plaintiff or defendant under Order 22 Rule 5 of
the Code of Civil Procedure is only for the purpose of bringing legal
representatives on record for the conducting of those legal proceedings only
and does not operate as res judicata and the inter se dispute between the
rival legal representatives has to be independently tried and decided in
probate proceedings. … … …”
It is well settled that an order passed by the trial Court can be interfered
with only if it exercises jurisdiction, not vested in it by law or has failed to
exercise its jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of jurisdiction
illegally or with material irregularity. The appellants herein are strangers to the
family of deceased Kolusu Gangamma. The rival legal representatives as
alleged by the appellants, by name Komma Vengamma, Dhimmila Ammaji
and Nerusu Krishna Murthy or their legal representatives have not raised any
5
(2020) 11 SCC 598
objection on the enquiry conducted by the learned trial Judge or have not filed
any objections against the report sent by the learned trial Judge.
14. In the case of Mohinder Kaur v. Piara Singh6, a Full Bench of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows:
“9. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in essence a decision under
Order 22, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, is only directed to answers an
orderly conduct of the proceedings with a view to avoid the delay in the final
decision of the suit till the persons claiming to be the representatives of the
deceased party get the question of succession settled through a different suit
and such a decision does not put an end to the litigation in that regard. It also
does not determine any of the issues in controversy in the suit. Besides this it
is obvious that such a proceeding is of a very summary nature against the
result of which no appeal is provided for. The grant of an opportunity to lead
some sort of evidence in support of the claim of being a legal representative
of the deceased party would not in any manner change the nature of the
proceeding. … … …”
The ratio laid down by the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in the case of Mohinder Kaur (6 supra) was approved by the Apex
Court in the case of Dashrath Rao Kate v. Brij Mohan Srivastava7.
15. Normally, an enquiry under Order XXII, Rule 5 of C.P.C is of
a summary nature and findings therein cannot amount to res judicata,
however, that legal position is true only in respect of those parties, who set up
a rival claim against the legatee. Admittedly, in the case on hand, no rival
claims are filed or none of the family members of Kolusu Gangamma have
raised any objection or have not come forward to add as legal representatives
of the deceased sole respondent Kolusu Gangamma, except the petitioner in
I.A.No.1/2016 (A.S.M.P.No.1990/2016). Admittedly, the alleged rival legal
representatives as stated by the appellants are having knowledge about the
proceedings and notices have been sent to them by this Court. If at all they
are having any objection, they ought to have filed an application for opposing
6
AIR 1981 P & H 130
7
(2010) 1 SCC 277
the report of the trial Court and to bringing true facts before this Court.
The learned trial Judge also issued notices to all the parties but nobody
responded except the petitioner in I.A.No.1/2016 (A.S.M.P. No.1990/2016).
Therefore, on considering the report sent by the learned trial Judge, the
petitioner in I.A.No.1/2016 (A.S.M.P.No.1990/2016) is permitted to come on
record as legal representative of deceased sole respondent Kolusu
Gangamma to prosecute the present appeal proceedings. It does not mean
that he is having proprietary rights in respect of the property mentioned in the
alleged Will. As stated supra, the scope of enquiry conducted under
Order XXII, Rule 5 of C.P.C is only for the limited purpose in respect of the
present appeal proceedings only. It will not confer any right in favour of the
petitioner in I.A.No.1/2016 (A.S.M.P. No.1990/2016), by name Komma
Kanaka Chintaiah. If any rival claims against the property of the deceased
Kolusu Gangamma arise in future, that have to be independently tried and
decided in separate proceedings.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition in I.A.No.1/2016 (A.S.M.P.
No.1990/2016) is allowed. The other application in I.A.No.1/2010 (A.S.M.P.
No.1172/2010) is dismissed and the consequential applications in
I.A.No.2/2010 (A.S.M.P.No.1173/2010) and I.A.No.3/2010 (A.S.M.P.
No.1174/2010) filed by the appellants are hereby dismissed. Therefore, the
petitioner in I.A.No.1/2016 (A.S.M.P.No.1990/2016), by name Komma Kanaka
Chintaiah, is permitted to come on record in the present appeal proceedings
as a legal representative of the deceased sole respondent Kolusu Gangamma
for the purpose of prosecuting this appeal alone.
17. In the result, the application in I.A.No.1/2016 (A.S.M.P.
No.1990/2016) is allowed and the applications in I.A.No.1/2010 (A.S.M.P.
No.1172/2010), I.A.No.2/2010 (A.S.M.P.No.1173/2010) and I.A.No.3/2010
(A.S.M.P.No.1174/2010) are dismissed.
//TRUE COPY//
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J
To,
2. Two CD Copies
HIGH COURT
VGKRJ
DATED:15/07/2025
COMMON ORDER
I.A.No.1/2016
(A.S.M.P.No.1990/2016),
I.A.No.1/2010
(A.S.M.P.No.1172/2010),
I.A.No.2/2010
(A.S.M.P.No.1173/2010)
and
I.A.No.3/2010
(A.S.M.P.No.1174/2010)
in
AS 238/1999