IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.S. Bhanumathi, J.
Kataru Lakshumma @ Chinna Ammanamma W/o Naga Muni Reddy @ Muni Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
Gada Venkata Ratnam S/o Tirupalaiah – Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No: 45 OF 2023
Decided On : 23-08-2023
Tampering of Revenue Records - Summoning of Tahsildar - Order XVI, Rule 1 (2) CPC - [Order XVI, Rule 1 (2) CPC] - The court discussed the importance of summoning the Tahsildar and the evidence of the Tahsildar in deciding the title of the parties. The court emphasized the necessity of material evidence to decide the title of both parties and found the trial court's dismissal of the petition to be in error.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking relief of declaration of right and title over the suit schedule property, alleging tampering of revenue records by the defendants. During the trial, the plaintiff filed a petition to summon the Tahsildar and produce a vital piece of evidence, which was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff then filed a revision petition against this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a serious dispute about the tampering of the revenue record, and all material evidence to decide the title of both parties was essential. The court emphasized the necessity of summoning the Tahsildar and the evidence of the Tahsildar in deciding the title of the parties. The court held that the trial court's dismissal of the petition was in error and allowed the revision petition.
Issues: The main issue was the necessity of summoning the Tahsildar and the evidence of the Tahsildar in deciding the title of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of material evidence to decide the title of both parties and found the trial court's dismissal of the petition to be in error.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, setting aside the order passed in the petition to summon the Tahsildar and produce vital evidence, and consequently, allowing the petition. There were no costs awarded, and pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed.
ORDER :
This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 17.11.2022, dismissing the petition in I.A.No.420 of 2022 in O.S.No.26 of 2016 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Kadapa, filed by the plaintiff under Order XVI, Rule 1 (2) CPC to summon the Tahsildar, Rajampet, to cause production of the entire file of mutation of revenue records pertaining to the suit schedule property and the letter addressed by the then Tahasildar, Rajampet, under reference No.B/216/2016, dated 10.08.2016, to the District Collector, Kadapa, and to give evidence pertaining to the same.
2. Heard Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and Sri G. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.
3. The plaintiff filed the suit originally against the defendants 1 to 7 and later, defendants 8 to 12 are added as seeking relief of declaration of right and title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and to grant permanent injunction against the defendants and also for cancelation of sale deeds executed by 1st defendant in favour of defendants 2 to 7 under various sale deeds mentioned in the prayer.
3.1 The plaintiff pleaded that the plaint schedule property belong to Mylapuram Kesi Reddy having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 06.06.1901, and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same by raising crops and his name was entered in R.S.R as pattadar/owner and later, he died about 70 years ago leaving behind him his two sons, namely, Narapureddy and Chenna Reddy as his legal heirs and that in oral partition, the suit schedule property fell to the share of Chenna Reddy and that Chenna Reddy also died intestate leaving behind him his only daughter, Yellamma and thus, Yellamma succeeded to the plaint schedule property. It is further pleaded that Yellamma was married to Thunga Chinna Venkata Reddy and they have a daughter, Kataru Lakshumma, i.e., the plaintiff and that Yellamma died about 40 years ago leaving behind the plaintiff as her sole legal heir since her husband also died in the year 1970. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff constructed a compound wall in a portion of the plaint schedule property and is in possession and enjoyment of the same and further that she was given rythu pass book under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act. While so, she learnt that the first defendant who has nothing to do with the plaint schedule property, in collusion with the other defendants, executed sale deeds and power of attorney, dated 20.05.2016, by misleading the revenue officials. She further stated that in the R.S.R, names of the pattadars for the suit survey number were mentioned as Goda Ramakrishnaiah and Mylapuram Kesi Reddy, and so, both of them have equal half right in the land in the said survey number to an extent of Ac.0.74 cents each. Thus, the plaintiff’s ancestor, Mylapuram Kesi Reddy owned Ac.0.74 cents in the said survey number. The plaintiff nextly pleaded that the 1st defendant, taking advantage of the similarity in the surname of Goda Raghuramaiah, executed false and fictitious sale deeds in favour of the other defendants and that Goda Raghuramaiah belongs to Brahmin caste. She further stated that in the documents executed by the 1st defendant, it is merely stated that the 1st defendant acquired the plaint schedule property and that the 1st defendant got fabricated pass book though there is no corresponding entry in the revenue records for the purpose of registration. Thus, the plaintiff filed the suit.
4. The 1st defendant filed the written statement averring that the grandfather of the 1st defendant, by name, Goda Ramakrishnaiah, and Mylapuram Kesi Reddy are the joint pattadars of the entire extent of Ac.1.48 cents each in Sy.No.428 of Mannur village shown in the plaint schedule and even as per the Resettlement Record (RSR) issued by the revenue authorities and the Register of
The necessity of summoning material evidence, such as the Tahsildar and the evidence of the Tahsildar, in deciding the title of the parties.
Summoning of Government Official – In each case, on examination of facts and circumstances, in light of contentions raised, decision is to be taken whether it is required to summon a government offic....
Ownership of immovable property must be established through valid title documents; revenue records alone do not confer ownership rights.
Compliance with mandatory requirements for summoning documents from a public officer and the limitations of Order XVI, Rules 1 and 5 of the CPC.
Summoning public officers under Order XVI, Rule 1 of CPC cannot be invoked by private parties without adducing proper and relevant evidence to prove their case.
Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.
The court reaffirmed that claimants must provide clear evidence of ownership and cannot rely solely on revenue records to establish title.
Whether the court has the power to direct production of evidence from public officials in superior positions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.