Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 882 (AP)

A. Rawoof Khan v. Noushad Basha

2020-12-31

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, D.RAMESH

body2020
ORDER : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. Assailing the Order, dated 10.02.2020, passed in I.A. No. 45 of 2020, by the Land Grabbing Court, in L.G.O.P. No. 1 of 2009, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 2. The Respondents herein filed the above I.A., seeking leave, for filing the schedule documents, namely, Partition Deed, dated 07.03.2005 and a Will executed by one Labbe Noor Basha father of Naushad Basha, dated 20.01.2000, as they were able to secure it from the house of the younger brother, who died during the pendency of the O.P. 3. By an Order, dated 10.02.2020, the Trial Court allowed the application, granting leave, and permitted the Respondents herein to file the schedule documents, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the Petitioners. This Order, as said earlier, came to be passed on 10.02.2020. Long thereafter, i.e., in the month of September 2020, this Writ Petition came to be filed. 4. The averments made in the affidavit, filed in support of the petition, show that, the Writ Petitioners filed O.P., before the Land Grabbing Court, seeking the following declarations, (a) the Petitioners therein are the absolute owners of the Petition Schedule Property; (b) the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 as land grabbers of the said land; (c) to restrain the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 from alienating the Petition Schedule Property; (d) to direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards illegal use and occupation of the schedule land. 5. The said O.P., as seen from the record, was filed sometime in the year 2006 and it was numbered in the year 2009. Pending the O.P., the 1st Petitioner died, as such, his legal heirs were brought on record as Petitioner Nos. 4 to 8. Similarly, 2nd and 3rd Respondents also died, as such their legal heirs were brought on record as Respondent Nos. 10 to 12 and 13 to 15, respectively. 6. A counter came to be filed in the O.P., disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the said O.P. It is stated in the counter filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who are the main contesting parties, that the ancestors of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in O.P. are the original owners of the land in Survey Nos. 1 to 5, who are the main contesting parties, that the ancestors of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in O.P. are the original owners of the land in Survey Nos. 321 and 312 and the Resettlement Registers contain the names of Ahmed Miah, Papa Miah and Jamuna Miah. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of Ahmed Miah and they own Ac. 1.07 cents in Survey No. 321 and Ac. 0.43 cents in Survey No. 312. After the death of their ancestors, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are in possession and enjoyment of the said property, which is now falsely claimed by the Petitioners in the O.P. The averments in the counter further allege that the Petitioners in O.P. have no right, title over the property and they occupied the premises highhandedly. The allegation that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 occupied the land on 03.05.2005 was denied. It is further pleaded that the documents, dated 17.12.1980, 18.12.1980 and 20.12.1980, are all fabricated and invented, with a view to secure title over the land. It is said that, though the originals of the documents were available, but, they were intentionally not filed, as falsity of documents would come to light pending trial. After the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2, the present application came to be filed with the leave of the court, for production of two documents, namely, a Partition Deed said to have been executed in the year 2005 and the Will of the year 2000. After considering the relevant material on record, the Trial Court allowed the I.A. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 7. Sri. M.R.S. Srinivas, the Counsel for the Writ Petitioners/Petitioners mainly submits that, the Order impugned is illegal and nowhere in the counter filed by the Respondents, referred to these two documents. He further pleads that, the plea of the Respondents that they came to know about these documents only after the death of their brother cannot be accepted, for the reason that, the brother was alive when the counter was filed, and if really those documents were available, nothing prevented him from disclosing about the same. He further pleads that, the plea of the Respondents that they came to know about these documents only after the death of their brother cannot be accepted, for the reason that, the brother was alive when the counter was filed, and if really those documents were available, nothing prevented him from disclosing about the same. In other words, his plea is twofold; firstly, no document can be placed on record unless there is a reference to it in the pleadings and the issue to that effect is not framed; secondly, these documents are all invented for the purpose of this case. 8. Sri. Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned Counsel for the Respondents would submit that, the allegations made against his client are false and baseless. According to him, only after giving a suggestion to the witnesses, with regard to the document, an application came to be filed seeking leave of the court. According to him, the Respondents ancestors are the owners of the disputed land and their names were recorded in the Resettlement Register. Since, the Respondents herein are the legal heirs of Ahmed Miah and that they are in possession and enjoyment of the same, pleads that these documents are very much essential. Apart from that, he would submit that, in the counter filed to the O.P., the title deeds issued by the M.R.O., Kollur, were enclosed. According to him, these documents came to be produced at a belated state, as they were in the custody of the younger brother of the deponent, who died during the pendency of the O.P. 9. Insofar as the maintainability of the I.A., is concerned, he would contend that, the Petitioners also filed I.A. No. 353 of 2019, after commencement of the trial and got 15 documents on record, though, there was no reference to many of the documents in their pleadings. Having regard to the fact that the case is coming up for cross-examination, he would submit that the Petitioners will not suffer any prejudice as they can cross-examine the witnesses with reference to these documents. 10. Both the Counsel took us through the catena of Judgments to show that under the Code of Civil Procedure, the suits are to be decided basing on the pleadings and issues framed and the parties to the suit cannot be permitted to travel beyond their pleadings. 10. Both the Counsel took us through the catena of Judgments to show that under the Code of Civil Procedure, the suits are to be decided basing on the pleadings and issues framed and the parties to the suit cannot be permitted to travel beyond their pleadings. It is also well established law that, any amount of evidence or proof adduced, without there being a pleading, is of no consequence and will not come to the rescue of the parties. 11. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Ponnayal Alias Lakshmi v. Karuppannan (Dead) Through Legal Representative Sengoda Gounder And Another : (2019) 11 SCC 800 and Ratanlal Alias Babulal Chunilal Samsuka v. Sundarabai Govardhandas Samsuka (Dead) Through Legal Representatives And Others : (2018) 11 SCC 119 . 12. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Respondents placed on record the Order passed by the Land Grabbing Court in the application filed by the Petitioners i.e., I.A. No. 352 of 2019 and the Judgments of this Court and the Apex Court, to show that law permits parties to file additional evidence, at any stage, with the leave of the court. He pleads that, when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. 13. As seen from the record, the matter is before a Land Grabbing Court, which is governed by a Special Act, but, however, the procedure contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure will be followed, in view of Sub-Section 2 of Section 7-A of A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. It is useful of extract Sub-Section 2 of Section 7-A of the Act, as under: (1) "... ... ... ... (2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, a Special Tribunal shall, in the trial of cases before it, follow the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (3) ... ... ... ... (4) ... ... ... ..." 14. As stated earlier, the main ground urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that, there are no pleading in the counter filed by the Respondents in the main O.P., about the proposed documents to be taken on file and without any pleading and there being no issue framed, the question of adducing evidence basing on these two documents does not arise. Moreover, the proposed documents do not create any right in favor of the Respondents. 15. It is to be seen that, in the cross-examination of PW1, it was suggested by the Respondents counsel that Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and their mother, in the year 2005 partitioned the petition schedule property among them, under a registered partition deed, and that the revenue authorities have issued pattadar pass book in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. It is obvious that the Respondents are claiming the petition schedule property as their ancestral property. Though, there is no specific reference to the scheduled documents in the pleadings of the Respondents, but, the contentions of the Respondents coupled with the suggestions given to PW1 makes it clear that the Respondents are setting up an independent title over the petition schedule property. 16. It is no doubt true that the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners hold that, unless there is reference about the documents in the plaint, the same cannot be allowed to bring on record or get them marked. But, it also to be noted that, this case is before the Land Grabbing Court and it was filed in the year 2006. Though Section 7A(2) states, in the trial of cases before the Special Tribunal, shall follow the procedure prescribed in C.P.C., but Rule 3 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, prescribe a procedure for making applications under Section 8(1) or 7A of the Act. Clause 4 of Rule 3 states that, every such application shall contain a statement in a concise form of the material facts of the claim made therein and accompanied by the copies of documents duly. 17. In the instant case, an application was filed under Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 3 of A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 and certain documents, which are relied upon, were filed. But, this application, in our view, may not partake the character of a plaint in strict sense, more so, when it says that the application should contain the statement in a concise form. Therefore, we feel that the request of the respondent was rightly accepted by the trial court for more than one reasons referred to above. Further, no prejudice is caused to the Petitioners when there is every opportunity for the petitioners to cross-examine the witnesses in respect of these documents. 18. Therefore, we feel that the request of the respondent was rightly accepted by the trial court for more than one reasons referred to above. Further, no prejudice is caused to the Petitioners when there is every opportunity for the petitioners to cross-examine the witnesses in respect of these documents. 18. The Petitioners herein made similar such application vide I.A. No. 353 of 2019, after the commencement of trial and about 15 documents came to be marked, though, there was no reference to these documents either in the plaint or written statement. It is no doubt true that the same by itself cannot be a ground to allow the petition, but, the trial is at initial stage and the plea is with regard to the title of the property, no prejudice would be caused to the Petitioners if the documents are brought on record, as the Petitioners will have every opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses by confronting them with these documents. Hence, we feel that the order of the trial court warrants no interference, but the same would be subject to genuinity and reliability of these documents. 19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off. No order as to costs. 20. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.