Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 10 (AP)

G. Krishnamurthy v. E. T. Munirathnam

2020-01-08

M.VENKATA RAMANA

body2020
ORDER : M. Venkata Ramana, J. 1. This civil revision petition is filed against the Order passed in IA No. 294 of 2018 in OS No. 130 of 2010, dated 28.12.2018, on the file of Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Punganur. 2. The defendants are the petitioners. They requested the Trial Court to frame certain additional issues, basing on pleadings in the counter-claim. Those proposed additional issues are as under: "(1) Whether the plaintiff can claim any right over the suit property as per the alleged contract of sale (un-registered) dated 11.8.2010 and on the date of Sale Deed, dated 24.11.2010 in view of the registered simple mortgage deed dated 28.11.2005 executed by G. Kodandapani in favour of 2nd defendant in force? (2) Whether the Will, dated 17.12.2006 executed by the G. Kodandapani in favour of defendants 3 to 5 is true, valid and binding the parties? (3) Whether the defendants are entitled for Permanent Injunction as prayed for, in the counter-claim, dated 22.2.2011? (4) Whether the value of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff is higher than the value of suit property can be permissible under law? (5) To what relief?" 3. The respondent as the plaintiff instituted the suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners basing on a title deed. The property in dispute is a wet land of Acs. 3-68 cents at A. Kothakota Village of Punganur Taluk of Chittoor District. The petitioner claimed that this land is subject-matter of a bequest by the admitted original owner, Sri P. Kodandapani, under his last and final Will, dated 17.12.2006 in their favour and has claimed right, title and possession of this land, upon his demise. 4. Thus, with reference to the Will set up by them, the petitioners requested the Trial Court to settle the additional issues stated above. 5. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Judge, refused to accept the request of the petitioners, on the ground that the pleadings set up by the parties, did not call for settling the proposed issues. 6. Sri G. Ramesh Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner now contends that in view of the' pleadings clearly offered by the petitioners, framing such additional issues by the Trial Court is necessary to adjudicate the matter in proper perspective and therefore, the rejection of their request by the Trial Court is not justified. 7. 6. Sri G. Ramesh Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner now contends that in view of the' pleadings clearly offered by the petitioners, framing such additional issues by the Trial Court is necessary to adjudicate the matter in proper perspective and therefore, the rejection of their request by the Trial Court is not justified. 7. Inspire of service of notice, the respondent did not choose to appear in this matter. 8. Now the point for determination is "whether refusal of request by the learned Trial Judge to frame additional issues in the circumstances is justified"? Point: 9. Basing on the pleadings, the learned Trial Judge had settled the following issues for trial: "(1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? (3) To what relief?" 10. Careful consideration of issues so framed, is not reflecting apt situation. Without adverting to the pleadings set up by the parties, particularly when both the parties are resting their claim on the title, issues of such general nature would not be sufficient for proper adjudication. 11. It needs to be noted that settlement of appropriate issues is necessary to enable the parties to the suit to let in appropriate evidence. Issues as such to be framed in a suit must direct and indicate in respect of burden of proof and nature of evidence to be let in by the parties including in the event of shifting of such burden. Appropriate care has to be taken by the Court in this respect. 12. Framing issues of the nature as is done in this case by the Trial Court is certainly improper. However, the relief sought either by the petitioners or the respondent, is giving an impression that both the parties have sought adjudication of the dispute without approaching the Court for comprehensive relief structuring 'their respective claims properly. 13. In such fact situation, since it is stated that trial has not yet commenced in the matter, it is desirable to direct the Trial Court to settle appropriate issues after hearing both the parties and basing on the pleadings. 14. Let this matter be remanded to Trial Court for consideration, upon setting aside the Order under revision. 15. 13. In such fact situation, since it is stated that trial has not yet commenced in the matter, it is desirable to direct the Trial Court to settle appropriate issues after hearing both the parties and basing on the pleadings. 14. Let this matter be remanded to Trial Court for consideration, upon setting aside the Order under revision. 15. In the result, this civil revision petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Punganur in IA No. 294 of 2018 in OS No. 130 of 2010, dated 28.12.2018. Learned Trial Judge is directed to frame appropriate issues upon hearing learned Counsel for both the parties. Issues already settled in this matter on 11.3.2013 stand set aside. Upon' settling appropriate issues, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a year, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 16. As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this civil revision petition, shall stand closed. Interim order, if any shall stand vacated.