1
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE :: KADAPA
Present: Sri V. Sreenivasa Siva Ram,
IV Addl. District Judge, Kadapa.,
FAC., I Addl. District Judge, Kadapa.
Thursday, this the 3rd day of March, 2022
[Link]. 778 of 2019 in [Link]. 31 of 2011
[Link] Madhusudana Reddy.
[Link] Ramalakshumma.
…Petitioners/Plaintiffs.
Vs
[Link] Hazeera. (DIED)
[Link] Rajamma.
[Link] Venkata Subbaiah.
4.A.R. Syed Shahida Begum.
5.A.R. Farvez Ahammed.
[Link] Shajahan.
7.G. Asha Hazzemma.
8.N. Mohammad Ali.
[Link] Srinivasa Raju.
…Respondents/Defendants.
This petition coming up before me for final hearing on 27.01.2022
in the presence of Sri G. Krishna Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioners/Plaintiffs
and Sri N. Dada Hayat and Sri T. Ramalingeswara Raju, Advocate for the
Respondents/Defendants No.3 to No.5 and Sri V. Rama Mohan, Advocate for
the respondents/defendants No2, No.6 to 9 and after hearing on both sides
and after having stood over for consideration till today, this Court made the
following:-
O R D E R.
This is a petition filed under order VII Rule 14 (3) r/w.151 of Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 for receiving the General Power of Attorney
dt.26.07.2019 executed by the 2nd plaintiff in favour of 1st plaintiff on the
ground that the 1st petitioner is the 1st plaintiff in the suit and the 2nd
petitioner is his mother and both of them have filed the suit for declaration
and other consequential reliefs, even though the properties stands in the
name of the 2nd petitioner vide document No.1502 of 1964 and the 1 st
petitioner after attaining majority is managing the properties and the
2
petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties
and that the 2nd petitioner is aged 76 years and she is senior citizen and the
respondents taking advantage of the old age of the 2 nd petitioner have
committed illegal acts and that the 2 nd petitioner has executed a General
Power of Attorney on 26.07.2019 authorizing the 1 st petitioner to prosecute
the proceedings. Hence the petition.
2. The respondents/defendants filed his counter denying the
averments of the petition and contended that the 1 st petitioner was examined
as P.W.1 and thereafter other witnesses were examined and when the 2 nd
plaintiff sought to examine herself as P.W.4, [Link].183 of 2018 was filed by
the petitioners and the same has been allowed and aggrieved by the same,
the petitioners preferred a Revision Petition No.4233 of 2018 and the said
Revision Petition was dismissed on 17.07.2019 and as such the chief
examination affidavit of the 2nd petitioner as P.W.4 was eschewed. The 2 nd
petitioner alone has title and the 1st petitioner does not have any title and the
present petition is filed as counter blast for eschewing the chief affidavit of
P.W.4 and mere filing of Power of Attorney cannot cure the lacuna of 1 st
plaintiff at this stage the 1st plaintiff cannot step into the shoes of the 2 nd
petitioner and claim and title of the suit property and the said petition is not
maintainable and prayed that the petition may be dismissed.
3. Now the point for consideration is whether the Power of
Attorney dt.26.07.2019 executed by the 2 nd petitioner in favour of the 1 st
petitioner can be received in evidence.
4. On this aspect, the main contention for the counsel for the
petitioner is that as the 2nd petitioner is aged 76 years and as 1st petitioner is
her son, the 2nd petitioner has executed General Power of Attorney, so that
the 1st petitioner can prosecute the suit.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents
contended that when the 2nd petitioner sought to be examined as P.W.4, they
have filed [Link].183 of 2018 which was allowed and aggrieved by the same,
3
the petitioners herein have preferred [Link].4233 of 2018 which was
dismissed and as such, the said document cannot be received.
6. In view of the rival contentions, the aspect that require for
consideration is whether the said Power of Attorney can be received. In this
regard, the main contention of the 1 st petitioner is that as the 2 nd petitioner
who is his mother is aged 76 years she was authorized to prosecute the
matter and in this regard, there is no dispute, it is admitted fact that the
property stands in the name of the 2nd petitioner and now the 1st petitioner
wants to prosecute on behalf of the 2 nd petitioner through the General Power
of Attorney and it is settled aspect of law that Order 3 of CPC., r/w. Rule 32 of
Civil Rules of Practice, a party can appear through an Agent and now the
petitioners are merely seeking to receive the General Power of Attorney and
the said General Power of Attorney has no relation to [Link].183 of 2018 and
therefore as receiving of the Power of Attorney does not cause prejudice to
any of the parties, the petition is allowed subject to the provision of Order III
of CPC., r/w. Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice.
9. In the result, the petition is allowed subject to the provision of
Order III of CPC., r/w. Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice.
Dictated to the Grade-1 Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in the open court this the 3rd day of March, 2022.
Sd/-V. SreenivasaSiva Ram
IV Additional District Judge,
Kadapa.
FAC., I Additional District Judge,
Kadapa.
Appendix of Evidence
- Nil -
Sd/-V.S.S.R.
IV ADJ.,
FAC., I ADJ.