Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1234
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SUJANA, J.
Smt. Sana Lakshmi Devi (Died as per LRs.) & others - Petitioners
Versus
M/s. Prime Properties, A registered Partnership Firm, Represented by its partner Najeeb Ahmed S/o. Late Mohammed Ali –
Civil Revision Petition Nos.1128, 2096, 2098, 2100, 2101 And 2102 of 2023
Decided On : 05-07-2024
For the Petitioners: Sri Satish Prasuram, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri S. Malla Rao
For the Respondents: Sri M.V. Durga Prasad
The court affirmed the necessity of original documents for adjudication, emphasizing the presumption of validity for registered documents under the Evidence Act, while allowing the summoning of records related to disputed claims.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 16, Rules 5 & 6 - Summoning of documents - The court allowed the defendants' applications to summon original documents and records related to a disputed sale deed, while dismissing the plaintiff's revision petitions challenging the trial court's orders. The court emphasized the necessity of original documents for adjudication and confirmed the trial court's authority to summon records related to prior investigations. (Paras 2, 8, 36)
(B) Evidence Act - Sections 35, 58, 59 & 60 - Presumption of registered documents - The court reiterated the presumption of validity for registered documents, emphasizing that the burden lies on the party disputing such documents to prove their invalidity. (Paras 7, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitions arise from a dispute over the validity of a sale deed dated 02.05.1952, with the plaintiff claiming ownership based on this document while defendants contest its authenticity, alleging fraud and seeking to summon original records for examination. (Paras 4, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the trial court's decision to allow the summoning of original documents necessary for adjudication and dismissed the revision petitions challenging these orders. (Paras 36, 40)
Issues: The primary issues included the necessity of summoning original documents for adjudication and the validity of the sale deed in question. (Paras 4, 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the trial court's orders to summon original documents were justified to ensure a fair trial and proper adjudication of claims regarding the sale deed, affirming the presumption of validity for registered documents unless proven otherwise. (Paras 36, 39)
Result: C.R.P.No.1128 of 2023 is dismissed; C.R.P.Nos.2096, 2100, 2101, and 2102 of 2023 are allowed; C.R.P.No.2098 of 2023 is dismissed. No costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the parties and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. defendants' claims regarding knowledge of the sale deed. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. plaintiff's counterarguments against the defendants' petitions. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. arguments regarding the validity of the sale deed and its implications. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. details on the original suit and parties involved. (Para 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. compromise and decree in prior litigation affecting current case. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 7. plaintiff's claims of fraud and challenges to the defendants' actions. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 8. defendants' assertions regarding ownership and legal standing. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 9. procedural aspects of summoning documents and evidence. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 10. court's observations on the summoning of documents. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 11. discussion on the quashing of fir and its relevance. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 12. final observations on the trial court's orders. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 13. conclusion and orders of the court. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
ORDER :
K. SUJANA, J.
Since the I.As questioned before this Court were disposed of by the court below by way of common order, all the C.R.Ps are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit. CRP No.1128 of 2023 is filed by the defendants 3 to 11 to set aside the docket order dated 04.04.2023 in O.S.Nos.588 to 591 of 2022. The other CRPs are filed to set aside the common order dated 19.07.2023 passed in I.A.Nos.286 to 289 of 2023 in O.S.Nos.588 to 591 of 2022 by the Senior Civil Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. I.A.No.286 of 2023 is filed U/o.16, Rule 5 & 6 r/w 151 of Civil Procedure Code (in short ‘C.P.C’) praying the Court to summon the original record pertaining to Volume No.IV (Sl.No.785) in relation to the Document No.707 of 1952 on the file of Sub- Registrar, Red- Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad including the thumb impressions pertaining to the said document No.707 of 1952. I.A.No.287 of 2023 is filed U/o.16, Rule 5 & 6 r/w 151 of C.P.C., to summon the entire record from Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad pertaining to FIR No.305 of 2014 on the file of P.S. KPHB, Kukatpally. I.A.No.288 of 2023 is filed U/o.16, Rule 5 & 6 r/w 151 of C.P.C., to summon the entire record from XIX - Metropolitan Magistrate -cum- AJCJ, Kukatpally pertaining to FIR No.305 of 2014 on the file of P.S. KPHB, Kukatpally. I.A.No.289 of 2023 is filed U/o.16, Rule 5 & 6 r/w 151 of C.P.C., to summon the entire record including the statement of account pertaining to bank account No.35423850732 of Sri Siddarth Infratech and Services (I) Private Limited, from State Bank of Hyderabad, Film Nagar Branch, Hyderabad. All the said I.As were filed by respondent Nos.2 to 9 who are defendant Nos.4 to 11 in the suits and the court below has allowed all the I.As by way of common order.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the original suit.
4. The brief common pleadings in the petitions are that on the basis of alleged original of Ex.A42 sale deed, respondent No.1/plaintiff firm filed four suits vide O.S.Nos.588 to 591 of 2022 claiming the suit schedule properties of the respective suits and the defendants have denied the truth and validity of the alleged Ex.A42 dated 02.05.1952 shown as Document No.707 of 1952 allegedly executed by Wali Mohammed in favour of Hashim Ali and that it is subject matter of investigation in FIR.No.305 of 2014 on the file of K.P.H.B., Kukatpally P.S. Similar FIR.No.51 of 2018 on the file of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad was also filed by one R. Koteshwar Rao, the alleged partner of the plaintiff firm and filing of these cases was admitted by PW1 in his cross examination. The truth and validity of original of Ex.A42 goes to the root of the matter. Hence, it is just and necessary that the record pertaining to Volume No. IV (Sl. No.785) in relation to Document No.707 of 1952 o
