The relevance of documents is paramount for admissibility in court, regardless of the timing of their submission.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 14 - The present Civil Revision Petition challenges the dismissal of an application to bring on record certain documents relevant to the title dispute over property originally owned by the Petitioners' great grandfather. The trial court rejected the application on grounds of delay, which was contested by the Petitioners. (Paras 1-11)

(B) Relevance of Documents - The court emphasized that the delay in filing an application is not a valid reason for rejection if the documents are prima facie relevant to the case. The Supreme Court precedent supports the admissibility of relevant documents at later stages of the trial. (Paras 11)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioners filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding property claimed to be inherited from their ancestors, which the Defendants disputed. The Petitioners sought to introduce additional documents during the trial, which the trial court dismissed.

Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the Petitioners' arguments and ruled that the trial court should have accepted the documents as they were relevant to the case.

Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for introducing documents based on the delay in filing.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the relevance of documents is the primary consideration for their admissibility, not the timing of their submission, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in K.K. Velusamy vs. N.Palanisamy.

Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. background of the property dispute (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. plaintiffs' contention on document relevance (Para 10)
3. court's view on document admissibility (Para 11)
4. ruling on the civil revision petition (Para 12)

ORDER:

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order dated 27.07.2022 passed in I.A.No.273 of 2022 in O.S.No.188 of 2011 by the Judge, Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District.

2. The brief facts so far:

The Petitioners herein are the Plaintiffs in the suit. The suit O.S.No.188 of 2011 was filed for declaration of title and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. The case of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs is that the suit schedule property was originally owned by the great grandfather of the Petitioner/Plaintiff by name Katta Venkatappaiah and his brother Katta Venkata Krishnaiah. The said Venkatappaiah had a son by name Katta Rangaiah i.e. grandfather of Petitioners/Plaintiffs, who had two sons viz., Peda Venkata Swamy i.e. father of the Plaintiff No.1 and Katta China Venkata Swamy. The father of the Plaintiff No.1 had died in the year 1961.

3. The schedule property is a part of the property belonging to the grandfather of the Plaintiff No.1 i.e. Katta Rangaiah and the said property was partitioned under a registered Partition Deed dated 01.07.1957 and in the said partition ‘A’ schedule property under that document was allotted to Katta Peda Venkata Swamy i.e. father of the Plaintiff No.1 and Katta China Venkata Swamy was allotted ‘B’ schedule property under the said document. Thereafter, the Petitioners/Plaintiffs had succeeded to the property.

4. It was also pleaded in the plaint that item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was mortgaged to the purchasers of the Defendants under a registered Mortgage Deed dated 22.06.1954. Though the amount due under the mortgage was discharged, the Defendants are claiming to be the owners of the schedule property. Certain suits, which have been filed by the Defendants against the other Defendants, were also mentioned in the plaint. The claim of the Plaintiffs was that they are the title owners of the schedule property as pleaded in the plaint.

Hence, the present suit was filed.

5. The Defendants filed their elaborate written statement disputing the claim of the Plaintiffs.

6. In the course of trial, P.Ws 1 to 7 were examined on behalf of the Plaintiffs and when the suit was posted for further evidence of Plaintiffs, the Petitioners/Plaintiffs filed I.A.No.173 of 2022 seeking to bring on record the following documents:-

Sl.No.	Date	Description of documents	Remarks
1.	16.12.1898	Certified copy of Sale Deed document No.3212/1898 executed by Kondapaturu Seethamma in favour of Katta Venkatappa and Katta Venkata Krishnamma regarding land Ac.2-49 cents in D.No.695 + Telugu typed copy.
2.	01.07.1949	Certified copy of Mortgage by conditional Sale Deed document No.2682/1949 executed by Katta Venkata Swamy etc. in favour of Thunuguntla Venkatappaiah regarding D.No.695/A, Ac.5-73 cents & D.No.613, 614, Ac.5-55 ½ cents total Ac.11-28 ½ cents + Telugu typed copy.
3.	24.12.1952	Certified copy of Possessory Mortgage Deed document No.3987/1952 executed by Katta Peda Venkata Swamy and others in favour of Thunuguntla Venkatappaiah regarding land D.No.697 A/2 total Ac.3.00 cents + Telugu typed copy.

4.	24.12.1952	Certified copy of Lease Agreement document No.3988/1952 executed by Thunuguntla Venkatappaiah in favour of Koppala Kotaiah regarding land D.No.697-B, Ac.1-90 cents & D.No.697 A/2 total Ac.3.00 cents + Telugu typed copy.
5.	18.08.2005	Death Certificate of Katta Subbayamma i.e. the death on 02.06.1991.
6.	23.03.2011	Death Certificate of Budhireddy Durga Mohan Reddy i.e. the death on 19.02.2011.
7.	29.10.2013	Death Certificate of Katta Pattabhiramaiah i.e. death on 26.09.2013.
8.	11.02.2020	Death Certificate of Didugu Rama Koteswara Rao i.e. death on 25.01.2020.
9.	27.08.1924	Certified copy of Sale Deed document No.3679/1924 executed by Kurra Ramanna a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 636

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHNYAPATHY VIJAY, JKATTA RAMA MURTHY – AppellantVersusTUNUGUNTLA SEETHA RAMA RAJU DIED – RespondentCRP 1914/2022

The relevance of documents is paramount for admissibility in court, regardless of the timing of their submission.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
KATTA RAMA MURTHY – Appellant
Versus
TUNUGUNTLA SEETHA RAMA RAJU DIED – Respondent
CRP 1914/2022