Back
B. S. BHANUMATHI
Kataru Lakshumma @ Chinna Ammanamma – Appellant
Versus
Gada Venkata Ratnam – Respondent
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 mentio
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.
Whether the court has the power to direct production of evidence from public officials in superior positions.
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.
The court established that procedural delays should not prevent the introduction of relevant evidence, prioritizing substantial justice.
Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
