THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3126 and 3128 of 2022

COMMON ORDER:

Since both these Civil Revision Petitions arise out of same suit, both these Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by way of this common order.

2. Civil Revision Petition No.3126 of 2022 is filed against the order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowing I.A.No.599 of 2020 in O.S.No.276 of 2019 filed by respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14-A CPC read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to receive a copy of Partition Deed, which was received under Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short “RTI Act”), as part of the record.

3. Whereas Civil Revision Petition No.3128 of 2022 is filed against order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowing I.A.No.619 of 2020 in I.A.No.599 of 2020 in O.S.No.276 of 2019 filed by respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff with a prayer to lead secondary evidence in respect of partition deed dated 01.01.1954.

4. The brief facts of the case are that originally, one Mr.Yousufuddin purchased the land to an extent of 9032 sq.yards covered by Survey Nos.117 and 118, Block 58, situated at Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad, under a registered sale deed bearing document No.358 dated 6^th Khurdad, 1342 Fasli (1932 AD), who in-turn sold the same to Mr. Syed Mohiuddin Saheb through a registered sale deed bearing document No.234, dated 16^th Isfandar, 1348 Fasli, and delivered possession to the purchaser. The said Mohiuddin Saheb constructed a bungalow, out houses, garages etc., and the said premises was given municipal number as 8-2-594 and he died leaving behind his three children i.e., two sons and one daughter, and the said land was orally divided into two equal shares by the two sons and rights of their sister were settled by giving another immovable property. The same is evident from the orders passed by the Urban Land Ceiling Department, Hyderabad, vide File No.E/8732/76, dated 28.05.1982 and from the development agreement entered by the revision petitioners/defendant Nos.4 and 5 with defendant No.6. Respondent No.1 herein is the daughter of Mr. Ghousuddin, and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the other children of late Syed Shamsuddin. Respondent No.1 herein filed the suit for recovery of 1200 square yards which was left over by her father after gifting certain portions to them from the half of 9032 sq.yards that fell to her father’s share and that the revision petitioners filed a document titled as acknowledgment of partition deed, in which, it is shown that the father of respondent No.1 was allotted admeasuring

3504.50 sq.meters out of land admeasuring 9032 sq.yards and also

5032 sq.meters of land to the share of Ghousuddin.

5. It is stated that the said document was filed by Mr. Ghousuddin before the ULC authorities but a copy of the very same document obtained by respondent No.1 from the ULC authorities shows that the land allotted to Mr. Ghousuddin is 4629 sq.meters which is also false. It is further stated that the fabricated document is already a part of the record filed by the revision petitioners and therefore, respondent No.1 sought to file a copy of the said partition deed received under RTI Act and then she came to know about execution of the partition deed from the written statement filed by revision petitioner No.2 and the respondent No.5 herein. Therefore, respondent No.1 filed I.A.Nos.599 and 619 of 2020 seeking to receive the partition deed obtained under RTI Act and to lead secondary evidence in respect thereof.

6. The Revision Petitioners filed counter denied the averments of the I.A.s by stating that the document which is now sought to be filed before the Court is a fabricated one and the original of the document has to be summoned for the purpose of ascertaining the validity and genuineness of the said document; that respondent No.1 planted a fabricated