( 1 ) THESE two appeals are preferred as against the Judgments and decrees made in O. S. No. 1302/87 and O. S. No. 175/90 on the file of III additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, one filed for declaration of title and other reliefs inclusive of the relief of possession and yet another suit filed praying for the relief of specific performance of reconveyance in relation to the self-same property. Both the matters were disposed of by a Common Judgment. It appears on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction the Appeal as against the Judgment and decree in O. S. No. 175/90 was preferred to the I additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabab as o. S. No. 148/96 which was transferred to this Court and renumbered for the purpose of disposal with the other Appeal inasmuch as both arise out of Common Judgment.

( 2 ) IT may not be out of context if it is referred to at the outset itself that in A. S. No. 148/96 aforesaid, I. A. No. 780/97 was filed by appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 r/w. Section 151 C. P. C. for reception of additional evidence i. e. , reconveyance: agreement dated 21-8-1974 and the registered sale deed dated 21-8-1974 bearing document No. 1347/74. Several reasons had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the said application why these documents are essential for the purpose of effective adjudication of the matters in controversy. Along with the said application the affidavit of third party Sri K. Venkat Reddy s/o. Sri K. Krishna Reddy, Advocate also was filed who had sworn to an affidavit in relation to the documents which are being produced by way of additional evidence before the appellate court which no doubt had been transferred to this Court to be heard along with yet another Appeal C. C. C. A. No. 73/96.

( 3 ) THE Counsel on record made submissions in elaboration putting forth their respective contentions on behalf of the respective parlies. Submissions of Sri Ramakrishna : Sri Rama Krishna, the learned counsel representing the appellants in both these Appeals pointed out that the learned trial Judge had totally erred in dismissing the suit for enforcement of reconveyance mainly on the ground that the said document was not produced before the Court. The learned Counsel also while further elaborating his submissions had explained the facts and circumstances under which the same could not be produced. The learned Counsel also had further explained different litigations concerned with the property and the respective stands taken by the respective parties and would contend that the very fact that the plaintiff in O. S. No. 1302/87 had taken a stand denying the very existence of reconveyance would definitely go to show that the stand taken by those parties is not correct stand since there is ample material available on record relating to the existence of reconveyance agreement whether the same had been produced before the Court or not. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the findings recorded by the trial Court while dealing with the question of limitation and would contend that the non-production of the reconveyance -agreement was made the main ground of attack and repeated findings had been recorded in this regard. In that view of the matter, inasmuch as the same is being produced in the interest of justice and also in the light of the explanation given both in the affidavit filed in support of the application and the third party affidavit of the Counsel, the application may have to be allowed. The learned Counsel also would submit that the very approach of the trial Court is erroneous since voluminous documentary evidence is available on record to show that an agreement relating to reconveyance of the self-same property and hence the rights of the parties under the said reconveyance unless if otherwise defeated the question of recovering possession by virtue ot ex. A-1 will not arise. The learned Counsel also in detail explained the several documents which would amply establish the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document