Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
M.G. PRIYADARSINI, J.
Pusala Venkat Reddy S/o Ganga Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Pusala Sanga Reddy S/o Kista Reddy - Respondent
CRP.No.1251 of 2022
Decided on : 24-08-2022
Constitution Of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 8, Rule 1-A, 1A(3) - Recovery of possession - Declaration of Title - Power Of Superintendence over all Courts by High Court - Duty Of defendant to Produce document upon Which relief is Claimed or relied upon by him - Denial to be specific - Merely not referring to this document in written statement, and delay in filing same, cannot be said to be fatal, and on these grounds, document in question, cannot be rejected. (Para 17).
Findings of the Court :
Plaintiff/respondent is permitted to lead additional evidence, if any, on the basis of the document now produced by the defendant/revision petitioner before the defendant is given an opportunity to lead evidence to rebut the evidence produced by the plaintiff. It is made clear that the record is received on file, subject to proof, admissibility and relevancy.
Result: Petition allowed
ORDER :
Assailing the order and decree dated 04.05.2022 passed by the court of Junior Civil Judge at Bichkunda in I.A.No.66 of 2022 in O.S.No.27 of 2017 in refusing to receive the document filed by the defendant, the present revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The revision petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.27 of 2017 on the file of Junior Civil Judge at Bichkunda against the defendant for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that originally their paternal grandfather late Pusala Ram Reddy is the owner and possessor of the agricultural land to an extent of Acs.8.06 gts. situated in Sy.No.38, Babalgom village of Kangtimandal, the then Jukkal Mandal of Nizamabad District at present Sangareddy District.
4. The said late Ram Reddy had two sons i.e., late Pusala Gangareddy and late Pusala Kista. The total extent of Acs.8.06 gts. was partitioned between the said two brothers, and each of them got As.4.03 gts. and Kasara Pahani for the year 1955 discloses that said partition.
5. Late Pusala Gaga Reddy had two sons i.e., P.Sangareddy Reddy and the Defendant i.e., Pusala Venkat Reddy, and that out of Acs.4.03 gts., they got 2.1 ½ gts., of land each. The plaintiff is the son of late Pusala Kista Reddy, who is the second son of late Ram Reddy, and he is entitled to Acs.4.03 gts.
6. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendant, with a mala fide intention, got his name mutated in the revenue records as pattadar and possessor, even in respect of land, which fell to the share of the plaintiff i.e., to an extent of Acs.4.03 gts., and certified copies of pahanies obtained by him for the years 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 and also the online pahanies, show the said entries. The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant never allowed him to cultivate the land that fell to his share.
7. With these averments, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession.
8. On the other hand, the case of the defendant in the written statement is that the entire extent of Acs.8.06 gts is the self-acquired property of his father i.e., late P. Gangareddy, and his name was also entered in the revenue records as owner and possessor, and that he perfected his title, and that he has been in continuous possession since from the year 1958-59, and that after his death, the property was divided between this defendant and his brother, and that his brother relinquished his right under memorandum of agreement dated 17.06.2005, and thereafter the entire extent was recorded in his name vide ROR proceedings No.20/2007 dated 5.10.2007. With these averments, he sought to dismiss the suit.
9. During trial, the evidence of plaintiff is completed and the suit is coming up for the evidence of the defendant. At this stage, the defendant filed the present I.A.No.66 of 2022 in O.S.No.27 of 2017, seeking to receive the Record Order in Memo No.A/Record/2017 dated 24.08.2017.
10. His case is that the said document is in possession of the Revenue Department and as such he could not submit at the time of filing of the suit and that the said document is crucial to prove his claim over the suit schedule property.
11. On the ground that the said document was issued on 24.08.2017 i.e., much prior to the filing of the written statement by the defendant, and that it is not his case that he received the said document after filing of the written statement, and that there is also no reference to this document in the written statement, the trial court refused to receive the said document and dismissed the application vide order and decree dated 4.5.2002. Assailing the same, the defendant filed the present revision.
12. Learned Sri Vijay B Paropkari, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, submits that the suit is for declaration of title and for recovery of possession and the defendan
SupremeToday
The court established that procedural delays should not prevent the introduction of relevant evidence, prioritizing substantial justice.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court may not permit the filing of additional documents at a belated stage if it would only protract the case, as established by the princ....
The main legal point established is the requirement of notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing orders under Sec.5(3) of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Passb....
The duty of the defendant to produce relevant documents in court and the importance of fair trial procedures.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to principles of natural justice and the prescribed method and procedure when exercising statutory powers.
The scope of judicial review is confined to decision making process and not the decision per se.
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
