THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1454 and 1464of 2024

COMMON ORDER

Since these Civil Revision Petitions revolve around a common issue, they were heard together.

2. C.R.P. No.1454 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2021 in I.A. No.262 of 2023in O.S. No. 41 of 2013 filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) passed by the I Additional District Judge, at Khammam (for short ‘the Trial Court’).

3. C.R.P. No.1464 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2024 in I.A. No.308 of 2023 in O.S. No. 60 of 2017 filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of the Code passed by the I Additional District Judge, at Khammam.

4. The revision petitioners in CRP No.1454 of 2024 are the defendant Nos. 4&19 in the suit filed vide O.S. No. 41 of 2013;and revision petitioner in CRP No. 1464 of 2024 is the plaintiff in suit filed vide O.S. No.60 of 2017.

5. A civil suit vide O.S. No. 41 of 2013 is filed by the respondent No.19 herein for partition and separate possession as plaintiff.

6. The revision petitioner herein filed the suit for permanent injunction vide O.S. No. 60 of 2017 (old O.S.No. 58 of 2015)

under Order VII Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 26 of CPC.

7. It is the case of the petitioners / petitioner in both the Revision petitions that a registered gift settlement deed vide document no. 2799/1999 dt. 04.11.199 was executed in his favour; that due the error in the original gift deed i.e. Document No. 2799/1999, the executants had jointly executed a Rectification Deed dated 08.03.2021 correcting the boundaries; that the original gift settlement deed executed in his favour got misplaced during shifting of his house; that the attesters to the aforesaid gift deed also had deceased long back; that he had obtained certified copy of the same and filed the same into court; and that he had mentioned the said fact in his chief evidence affidavit.

8. It is the further case of the petitioners / petitioner thatone Sri. N. Venakata Narasaiah i.e. defendant No.16, who is the son of Late Nutangi Ramanayudu (Kartha) and Sri. N. Venkateswara Rao i.e.

defendant No.9, who is the son of Nutangi Narayana and grandson of Late Nutangi Ramanayudu (Kartha), had denied the execution of the gift settlement deed in his favour; that during his cross- examination in O.S. No. 41 of 2013, as it was suggested that the certified copy of the original gift deed filed by him does not have signatures of the executants, and that the Rectification deed dt. 08.03.2021 was not executed by the donors nor were they present at the Joint Sub-Registrar office, Kanigiri, he had filed the underlying interlocutory applications vide I.A. Nos. 302 & 308 of 2023 in the suit filed by him vide O.S. No. 60 of 2017,and vide I.A. No.262 of 2023 in O.S. No. 41 of 2013, to direct Joint Sub- Registrar, Kanigiri, PSR Nellore, to produce the register of registration Book No.1 pertaining to doc. No. 2799 of 2019 and doc. No. 2203 of 2021, as the same contains the thumb impression of the executants in respect of the original gift deed for being compared with signatures on the rectification deed and to give evidence.

9. The revision petitioners / petitioner further contended that the respondent herein and plaintiff in O.S. No. 41 of 2013, during his cross examination, had wrongly suggested to him that the tobacco barren, registered in the name of plaintiff, was sold by him to Gogula Vengala Reddy in 2001, without he having any authority to alienate the said tobacco barren to any other party.

10. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons he had filed the underlying interlocutory applications in both the suits filed by him and against him.

11. Interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 262 of 2023 is filed seeking to pass direction as under:

i. the Joint registrar, Kanigiri town, Nellore district a) to produce the register containing book of thumb impressions and signaturesmaintained while registering the documents, signatures, thumb impressions of