Let's dive into a court case where Judge B.R. Madhusudhan Rao made an important decision about adding a new person to a property dispute. Here's what happened.
This case involves a request to change a previous decision, filed under a part of the Indian Constitution. It challenges an order from a judge in Bhadradri Kothagudem about adding a new person to a lawsuit over some properties.
The person who started the case is the original complainant, and the other person is someone who wants to be added as the ninth person in the lawsuit. This person claims they have rights to some properties based on a will.
The other person claims that Vemuluri Venkateswarlu, before he died, made a will giving properties to Anasurya, who later left some of these properties to them. Anasurya passed away in 2016, and the other person wants their name on the property records.
"Anasurya got sick and... made a will on 06.07.2015, giving ‘B’ and ‘C’ items of the properties to this person."
The complainant argues that Venkateswarlu died without a will, making the property belong to the whole family. They claim Anasurya had no right to give the properties away, especially since her children are still alive. There's also mention of a criminal case against the other person for trying to mess with the properties.
The trial court decided that the other person is needed in the case. This means their involvement is essential for resolving the issues in the lawsuit.
The complainant believes the trial court made a mistake. They argue that the other person has no real connection to the family and shouldn't be part of the lawsuit. They also mention that the other person only came forward five years after the lawsuit was filed.
Judge Rao reviewed the case and decided not to change the trial court's decision. He agreed that the other person's presence is necessary for a fair trial, especially to check if the wills are valid.
"The presence of the other person in the lawsuit is required for proper and effective resolution of the dispute."
In the end, the request to change the decision was turned down. The court emphasized that the other person's involvement is crucial to address all the questions in the case effectively.
