SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20309

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B. S. Bhanumathi, J
S. JAKEER SAB – Appellant
Versus
SHAIK USMAN BASHA – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.2948 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N. Aswartha Narayana
For the Respondents: M. K. Viswanath Naidu

A trial court's refusal to admit documents under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC due to lack of pleading may be set aside if the party is granted liberty to file a supplementary affidavit explaining the documents' relevance as link evidence.

Headnote:The matter involves a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the dismissal of an application filed under Order VII, Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs sought leave to produce two registered sale deeds from 1919 and 1932, asserting they were recently discovered and are essential to prove their title. The trial court dismissed the application on the grounds that the documents lacked a substratum in the pleadings, effectively ruling that admitting them would amount to allowing evidence without prior pleading. The primary issue is whether documents not explicitly mentioned in the plaint can be admitted during trial if they serve as link documents to the title. The court observed that while the initial application failed to explain the relevance of the documents or how they linked to the facts in issue, the petitioners should be given an opportunity to clarify these points through a supplementary affidavit rather than having the evidence excluded entirely. The revision petition is disposed of setting aside the order, dated 02.09.2025, in I.A.No.398 of 2024 in O.S.No.100 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Uravakonda giving liberty to the petitioners to file a better affidavit explaining as to how these documents are relevant to the case on hand and thereafter, the trial Court shall dispose of the petition afresh after hearing both the parties giving the respondents also an opportunity to contest the petition after filing additional better affidavit.

The Court made the following:

ORDER

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 02.09.2025 dismissing I.A.No.398 of 2024 in O.S.No.100 of 2022 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Uravakonda filed by the plaintiffs under Order VII, Rule 14 (3) of C.P.C. to grant leave to file the following documents:

1. Original registered sale deed dated 21.10.2019 executed by Bandi Rangappa S/o. Rangappa in favour of Makthum Sab, S/o.Kanagiri Hussain Sab.

2. Original registered sale deed dated 03.10.1932 executed by (i) Golla Anjinamma W/o. Metla Hanumappa, and (ii) Hanumakka, W/o. Thimmappa, in favour of Makthum Sab, S/o. Kanagiri Hussain Sab.

The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants.

The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants with the averments, briefly stated, as follows:-

a. The plaintiffs are the brothers. Their father is Sabapathi Adam Sab. The plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 purchased the plaint schedule property in S. No. 715 of V.Kothakota village from its original owner Sabhapati Saleem Basha, S/o. Sabhapati Anwar Sab under separate sale deeds dated 07.02.2022 and 09.02.2022 was purchased by the plaintiffs respectively and have been in their possession and enjoyment. The suit schedule properties are 400 Sq. Yds. each to the plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2. The southern boundaries of both the items is open site in S. No. 714-A.

b.

(i) Ac.0.09 cents out of the Ac.4.26 cents in S.No.714-A in V.Kothakota village gram panchayat belonged to Sk.Kasim Sab and his son Ibrahim Sab. They sold the property to Sk.Abbas, the father of the defendants, under a registered sale deed dated 27.04.1977.

(ii) Ac.0.20 cents out of Ac.4.26 cents in S.No.714-A in the same village originally belonged to Mahaboob Dhoula Sab and Adam Sab who are the sons of Sabhapathi Chinna Masthan Sab. They sold the above said property to Sk.Abbas who is the father of the defendants under a registered sale deed dated 09.07.1982.

(iii) Thus, the father of the defendants owned, possessed and enjoyed a total extent of Ac.0.29 cents in S.No.714-A of V.Kothakota village.

(iv) After demise of Sk.Abbas, his sons and daughters partitioned their ancestral properties, including the property in S.No.714-A, through a registered partition deed dated 22.10.2016 bearing No.2905 of 2016.

c. The defendants are the strangers to the plaint schedule property. However, with a malafide intention to grab the plaint schedule property, after they got their properties partitioned, again obtained a registered rectification deed of partition dated 02.06.2022 with false allegation by altering the S.No.714-A to S.No.715 without having any right over the land in S.No.715.

The defendants Nos.1 to 4 filed a written statement with the averments, briefly stated as follows:

a. It is true that the father of the defendants purchased 29 cents out of Ac.4.26 cents in Sy.No.714-A under the registered sale deeds dated 27.04.1977 & 09.07.1982; and that the property of the father of the defendants was partitioned by his sons and daughters under the registered partition deed dated 22.10.2016 as stated in the plaint.

b. It is false that the defendants got the rectification partition deed executed with a malafide intention to grab the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs have to independently prove their title and possession and the alleged interference by the defendants and cannot rely on the weakness of the case of the defendants, if any.

c. The plaint schedule property is originally the ancestral property of the defendants. Subsequent to some transactions, the father of the defendants purchased, under the registered sale deed dated 27.04.1997, the property admeasuring 09 (nine) cents in Sy.No.714-A bounded on East: Hayrick yards of Venkataramanappa and others, West: Hayrick yard of Sile Fhakruddin Sab, North: Rastha and South: Hayrick yard of Sabhapathi Masthan Sab.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top