IMPORTANT POINT
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 official either to produce record or give evidence.

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 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 Holdings