IN THE COURT OF THE HONOURABLE SIENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

RAYACHOTY
I.A No.192/2018
In
O.S No.4/2017
G. Nagamma and other ... Petitioners/Defendants

Vs.

Kethineni Lakshmi Devamma ... Respondent/plaintiff

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

PLAINTIFF

1. This petition is unjust and not maintainable either in law or

on facts.

2. The petitioners are put to strict proof on all the allegations

made in the petition which are not expressly admitted herein by this
respondent/plaintiff.

3. The suit summon were served on the petitioners and that the
petitioners engaged their Advocate. The Honourable Court was pleased
to grant lot of time to the petitioners for filing their written statement in
this suit upto 20-042017. The petitioners could not file their written
statement even after completion of 90 days dead line. Thereafter the
Honourable Court was pleased to call the petitioners absent on 20-04-
2017 and set them exparte on 20-04-2017. The Honourable Court was
pleased to examine PW1 and mark Ex.A-1, A-3 and pass decree and
judgment basing on Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3 in favour of plaintiff. The documents
Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 are registered partition deeds specifying the share of
the father of this respondent/plaintiff and the defendants. The document
Ex.A-3 being the Adangal showing the possession of the father of the
plaintiff and the defendants over the suit property.

4. The first defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and second

defendant is the younger sister of the plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff is
not knocking away the legitimate share of the petitioners. The
Honourable Court decree is not for taking away entire suit property by
the respondent/plaintiff. The written statement filed by the
petitioners/defendants is not showing any in equality, discrepancy,
illegality or prejudice to the defendants by virtue of preliminary decree
 :: 2 ::

passed by the Honourable Court granting of the division of the suit

property into three shares for allotting one such, separated share to the
plaintiff and remaining two shares to the petitioners/defendants. The
preliminary decree granted by the Honourable Court is not depriving of
and not preventing the defendants from getting two equal shares to the
defendants and one such share to the plaintiff by dividing the suit
property into three equal shares.

5. The petitioners are submitting the cause of ill-health of

second defendant who is aged about 62 years and that the first
defendant being the mother of the plaintiff is aged about 85 years and
that she could not suffer from any ill-health on 31-07-2017 or earlier upto
now. The petitioners did not file any medical certificate for showing ill-
health of the second petitioner on 31-07-2017 or earlier upto now. The
first defendant who is doing well and not suffering from any ill-health
should have come to the Honourable court with their written statement
on or before 31-07-2017 for filing their written statement in the
Honourable court. The petitioners did not file their written statement in
0.S.No.4/2017 since the defendants did not oppose the partition of the
suit property into three shares and allot their separated equitable shares
to them. The exparte preliminary decree of the Honourable Court is 100%
justified and according to the procedure established by law. The
petitioners did not plead in this petition by alleging that the preliminary
decree was taken by the plaintiff by playing fraudulent game and by
making false representation to the Honourable Court for getting away
the legitimate share of the plaintiff as well as remaining two shares of the
defendants by violating the provisions of Sections 8 and 29-A of Hindu
Succession Act of 1956.

6. The petitioners show sufficient cause for not preferring this

application within the period of 30 days. The applicant was misled by an
order or practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or
computing the prescribed period of limitation may be sufficient cause
within the meaning of this section. There is no order or judgment of the
Honourable A.P. High Court in this suit O.S.No.4/2017. So the petitioners
are not mislead in ascertaining or computing the period of limitation. The
cause mentioned by the petitioners is by showing the ill-health of the
 :: 3 ::

second defendant is not sufficient cause for preferring this set-aside

exparte, preliminary decree.

7. The petitioners filed this false petition with false intention

since there is no unjustice to the petitioners in the preliminary decree
passed by the Honourable court. There is no sufficient cause shown by
the petitioners. There are no merits in this petition. Some third parties
i.e. the dayadies of the Petitioners misled the petitioners to file this
petition for depriving the separated shares of the plaintiff and
defendants continuously pending in the court without mental peace with
agony and lot of litigation expenses. Hence, the petitioners are not
entitled for preferring the petition for setting aside exparte preliminary
decree for partition of suit property into three shares and allot one such
separated share to the respondent/plaintiff and other two share to the
defendants.

8. Therefore the respondent/plaintiff prays that the Honourable

Court may be pleased to dismiss this false petition with costs of
Rs.2,000/- in the interest of justice.

I verify and states that the above stated facts are true to the best of
my knowledge information and belief and signed this at Kadapa on 23rd
day of July, 2018.

ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

 IN THE COURT OF THE
HONOURABLE SIENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AT RAYACHOTY
I.A No.192/2018
In
O.S No.4/2017
G. Nagamma and other

... Petitioners/Defendants
Vs.

Kethineni Lakshmi Devamma

... Respondent/plaintiff

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF

OF THE RESPONDENT
PLAINTIFF

Filed by:

Sri. K. Venkata Reddy, B.Com., B.L.,

ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT,
Kadapa