Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1045 (AP)

Kovuru Seshaiah v. Nellore Sujana Sujanamma

2022-10-18

BATTU DEVANAND

body2022
ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant challenging the Order dated 21.03.2022 passed in I.A.No.108 of 2022 in O.S.No.240 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Nellore. 2. Heard Sri T.C. Krishnan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/defendant and Sri P.S.P Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent/plaintiff and perused the material available on record. 3. The Petitioner herein is the Defendant and the respondent herein is the Plaintiff in O.S.No.240 of 2012 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Nellore. 4. For convenience, the parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the trial Court. 5. The case of the Plaintiff is that the plaintiff owned 50 Ankanams of vacant site comprised in Plot No.31 abutting near Door No.1116 in Ward No.27/1 of Aditya Nagar, Nellore. It came to her notice that the defendant was instrumental in securing registration in his favour by way of the sale of the said property on 03.01.2011 and the document No.12/2011 contains a recital of payment to the plaintiff by the defendant a sum of Rs.24 lakhs. On coming to know the contents of the said transaction, she gave a report with the S.H.O., Balaji Nagar Police Station and the Police registered a case in Cr.No.17 of 2012. She also filed a suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 03.01.2011 of the suit schedule property executed by her in his favour directing to deliver the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to prove his ownership and possession, he has to examine the Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation, SPSR Nellore District, for cause production of the document details of Tax Payments, inclusive of VLT collected for Plot No.33 since 03.01.2011 along with the details of building plan approvals and the relative fees collected towards approval of the same in the schedule property. The said documents are public documents and as such, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent to summon the said documents. The said documents are public documents and as such, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent to summon the said documents. Therefore, it is just and necessary to summon the Commissioner, SPSR Nellore District, for the said purpose, and to summon the Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation, SPSR Nellore District, to cause production of the documents details of Tax payments inclusive of V.L.T collected for Plot No.33, LP No.220/B5, Adithya Nagar, Nellore, since 03.01.2011 along with the details of building plan approvals and the relative fees collected towards approval of the same in the schedule property and for further reliefs. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 03.01.2011 of the suit schedule property executed by the plaintiff in is favour directing to deliver the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property. The defendant purchased the plaint schedule property from the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 03.01.2011 for valuable consideration of Rs.25 lakhs and got possession of the said land on the same day and put up idol of Saibaba on the pial constructed at plaint schedule property and worshipping. As the defendants intends to construct a temple in the schedule property for worshipping the lord Saibaba, collected donations from devotees in and around and on getting the building plan approval in L.P.No.220/1985 from the Municipal Corporation, Nellore, completed the construction as per plan in the year 2011. In view of the development made by the defendant with huge amounts, the plaintiff asked the defendant to sell the said land with constructed temple structures therein. As the defendant refused to do so, the plaintiff got registered a false case in Cr.No.17/12 on the file of Balajinagar Police Station, Nellore, against the defendant and his wife. Thereafter, on 13.02.2012, the plantiff along with her henchmen trespassed into the temple and removed the gates and windows fixed to the constructed temple and took away. Thereafter, in the month of April, 2012, the defendant got installed the idol of Lord Sai Baba as per sasthra on performing homas and poojas. Since then, the defendant performing the poojas continuously wherein the devotees are also visiting the temple for blessings of Lord Saibaba in the temple constructed in the plaint schedule property. Thereafter, in the month of April, 2012, the defendant got installed the idol of Lord Sai Baba as per sasthra on performing homas and poojas. Since then, the defendant performing the poojas continuously wherein the devotees are also visiting the temple for blessings of Lord Saibaba in the temple constructed in the plaint schedule property. But, the plaintiff without showing the real state of existing structures filed the suit with false version suppressing the existing physical features with oblique motive to get decree on misleading the course of justice. Therefore, the Sale Deed dated 03.01.2011 is not liable to be cancelled as alleged by the plaintiff. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner had not taken the plea of examining the Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation, SPSR Nellore District, as mentioned in I.A.NO.108 of 2022 in his pleadings in the Written Statement, and thereby, the petitioner is not entitled to take the new plea in the petition. Therefore, I.A.No.108 of 2022 is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the Orders passed in Chekka Krishna Prasad v Kotha Appa Rao, Manu/AP/0127/1998, P. Durga Reddy v B. Yadi Reddy, Manu/Ap/2155/2014, Ashok Sharma v Ram Adhar Sharma, Manu/SC/0177/2009, and Nandi Velugu Lakshmi Bharathi v Nandi Velugu Chandrasekhar, Manu/Ap/0372/2003. 10. The respondent has relied on the order in Doni Ushaiah v Thota Bhooma Reddy and Others, 2022 LS (TS) 439. 11. This Court gave serious consideration of the orders relied on by the respective counsel. 12. The Petitioner filed an application under Order 16 Rule 1 r/w 151 CPC to permit the petitioner to summon the Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation, SPSR Nellore City, to cause production of documents of Tax Payments inclusive of V.L.T collected for Plot No.33, LP No.220/B5, Adithya Nagar, Nellore, since 03.01.2011 along with the details of the building plan approvals and the relative fees collected towards approval of the same in the schedule property. Admittedly, in the suit, the evidence of the petitioner and the respondent is closed. At this stage, the petitioner is seeking for cause production of the documents. Admittedly, in the suit, the evidence of the petitioner and the respondent is closed. At this stage, the petitioner is seeking for cause production of the documents. The Petitioner in his evidence admitted that he is not in possession of any documents to show that he paid municipal tax to the Municipal Corporation, Nellore and also that he obtained plan approved by the Municipal Corporation for construction of the temple in the suit schedule property. The trial Court rightly observed that it is not the case of the petitioner that he never obtained any such plan and paid municipal taxes. The petitioner did not take plea of examining Municipal Commissioner in his Written Statement. It is to be held that a witness cannot be summoned to let in the evidence not supported by pleadings. In suits where disputes over immovable properties between two parties arose, it is settled law that the Courts shall not ordinarily summon public servants to support the cause of one party unless the Court itself is of the opinion that the evidence of such public servant is required to adjudicate on the seriously disputed questions arising in the suit. 13. The orders relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. On the other hand, the Order relied on by the respondent reported in Doni Ushaiah’s case, is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said Order, the application of Order 16 of C.P.C is thoroughly examined. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the proposition of law laid in Doni Ushaiah’s case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order is a reasoned one and does not warrant any interference of this Court. Thus, the revision fails and is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the Order dated 21.03.2022 in I.A.No.108 of 2022 in O.S.No.240 of 2012 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Nellore. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.