COMMON ORDER:

As parties in both these revision petitions are one and the same and both the revisions arise out of two applications out of the very same suit, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.42 of 2010 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Gooty against the deceased 1st defendant seeking permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from interfering with the plaint schedule property consisting of approximately Ac.3.12 cents of land. The case of the petitioner was that her husband was the owner of Ac.5.00 of land out of which 1.88 cents was acquired by the Government for road widening and compensation was paid to her husband. After demise of her husband on 06.01.2003, the petitioner came into possession and enjoyment of the said land and was running a brick kiln, mechanic shed and residential house. As the deceased 1st respondent was a stranger to the suit and was trying to trespass into the land, the petitioner is said to have filed the suit.

3. During the course of suit proceedings, the 2nd respondent, who was a subsequent purchaser, was impleaded as defendant No.2. On the death of the deceased 1st defendant, his legal heirs were added as defendants 3 to 7 in the suit and they are arrayed as respondents 3 to 7 herein. As defendant No.5 had also passed away, his legal heirs were brought on record as defendants 8 to 10 in the suit and they are arrayed as respondent Nos.8 to 10 herein.

4. The deceased 1st respondent had filed a written statement stating that the father-in-law of the petitioner, who was originally the owner and in possession of the property, had sold the said land to two persons, viz., Imamuddin Sab and C.A. Rahiman under a registered deed of sale dated 10.09.1984 and the said Imamuddin had sold away Ac.1.00 of land in favour of the deceased 1st defendant by way of registered deed of sale dated 08.01.1987. On that basis, the deceased 1st defendant contended that as the father-in-law of the petitioner had sold away the property, the question of the husband of the petitioner or the petitioner still retaining any title in the property does not arise.

5. After due trial and hearing the suit was allowed by way of a decree and judgment dated 29.11.2017. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondents herein had filed A.S.No.31 of 2017 in the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Ananthapur at Gooty. This appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial Court.

6. In the course of hearing of the appeal, the appellate Court noticed that the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer giving title to the petitioner herein, which was marked as Ex.A.1, had not been dealt with properly by the trial Court. The appellate Court found that while Ex.A.1 was accepted by the trial Court, in one part of the judgment, on the ground that Ex.A.1 proceedings had not been challenged by the vendors of the deceased 1st defendant, the trial Court had also held that the burden of clarifying Ex.A.1 remains on the revenue authorities. The appellate Court held that these mutually contradictory findings required to be resolved, and directed that the trial Court should appreciate the effect and impact of Ex.A.1 document in accordance with the law after appreciating the evidence placed before it in accordance with law.

7. After remand, the matter was again taken up by the trial Court. At that stage, the 2nd respondent on behalf of the respondents had filed I.A.No.848 of 2018 requesting the trial Court to receive certain documents, which were an endorsement of the Tahsildar Pamidi, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, dated 22.01.2018 and certified copy of the plaint and valuation certificate in O.S.No.1 of 2015 etc.

8. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on

31.12.2019 against which C.R.P.No.435 of 2020 has been filed before this Court. This Court by order dated 18.08.2020 had allowed the said r