This Revision Petition has been preferred by the defendant/Appellant in A.S.No.3 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the suit schedule property into three equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiffs with separate possession contending that they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The first defendant remained ex parte and the second respondent, who is the appellant in the Appeal, appeared through his counsel and filed written statement disputing the claim of the petitioners and contended that after the death of the father of the D-1, D-2 and his brother Bhadraiah alienated their share of land in the suit survey number including the area covered by the road and subsequently D-1, his brother Bhadraiah and their elder brother's adopted son Nagaiah jointly executed an agreement of sale in favour of D-2 and after receiving an amount of Rs.2,000/- as advance, he was put in possession of the suit land along with the share of Bhadraiah and since the date of sale, he was in possession and enjoyment of the same and his name was also recorded in the revenue records as possessor and entries were also made in the pahanies from 1979-80 to 08-07-1988.

3. The Trial Court, after framing appropriate issues, considered the oral and documentary evidence and decreed the suit directing partition of the suit land among the sharers. Being aggrieved by the same, the second defendant, who is the petitioner herein, preferred A.S.No.3 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad. During the pendency of the Appeal, the petitioner filed I.A.No.734 of 1994 under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. praying to permit him to file the ROR certificates as additional evidence in the Appeal and mark them as exhibits. The Appellate Court disposed of the Appeal through the Judgment, dated 30-07-1997 and the Revision Petitioner preferred S.A.No.770 of 1997 on the file of the High Court. The High Court allowed the Appeal and remanded the matter for fresh disposal with a further direction to dispose of the matter at the earliest point of time.

4. The Appellate Court, after hearing both parties, dismissed the Application by observing that the petitioner is not entitled to file the documents. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision contending that the documents proposed to be filed, which are Form 13-B and 13-C certificates issued under Section 5-A (4) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 validating the unregistered sale deed mentioned therein respect of land in Sy.No.673/B of Molangur Village and the said documents are relevant, material and are admissible as additional evidence under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. The petitioner further contended that he could not produce those certificates in the lower Court due to filing of the said certificates before the M.R.O., therefore, they could not be filed during the trial of the suit.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the certificates were issued by the M.R.O. during the pendency of the suit by conducting a parallel enquiry, which is not permissible under law. The document sought to be relied on is purported to be a simple sale deed which is described as agreement of sale, dated 04-11-1973 marked as Ex.B-1 and on behalf of the appellant several documents including certified copies of pahanies from the years 1979-80 to 1986-87 were also filed which are marked as Exs.B-4 to B-10.

6. The lower Court observed that though the petitioner claimed to have purchased the property from D-1 and two others, the certificates were issued without the knowledge of the plaintiffs and his father. When the agreement of sale covered by Ex.B-1 is subject matter of adjudication in the main suit and the parties were allowed to lead evidence and in fact the petitioner has adduced evidence in proof of the same, simultaneous proceed