Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1239 (AP)

Palika Venkataramana v. Pithani Verikata Ramana

2022-11-09

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2022
ORDER : 1. These two sets of revisions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are filed challenging the order, dated 17.03.2020, dismissing I.A. Nos. 89, 90, 91, 92 and 93 of 2020 in O.S. No. 474 of 2018 on the file of the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The other set of revisions are filed aggrieved by the order of even date dismissing I.A. Nos. 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 of 2020 in O.S. No. 475 of 2018 on the file of the same court. 2. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 474 of 2018. They filed I.A. No. 89 of 2020 under Section 151 CPC to reopen the plaintiff’s side evidence; I.A. No. 90 of 2020 under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall PW-1; I.A. No. 91 of 2020 under Order VII Rule 14 (iii) CPC to file passbook copy relating to Palika Chandra Rao pertaining to S. No. 197/4 of Kakinada Rural; I.A. No. 92 of 2020 under Order XVI Rules 6 and 7 CPC to issue summons to the Tahasildar, Kakinada Rural to produce the relevant revenue record like adangals for the year 1985-86, 1995-96 relating to the property of Palika Chandra Rao situated in S. No. 197/4; I.A. No. 93 of 2020 under Order XVI Rules 6 and 7 CPC to issue summons to the witness, Smt. Gogineni Swaroopa Rani rep. by GPA holder Komatineni Seetharamayya. As all these petitions were dismissed by the trial Court, C.R.P. Nos. 457 of 2021, 1179 of 2020, 482 of 2021, 470 of 2021 and 546 of 2021 are filed respectively. 3. In the other batch of revisions, the revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 475 of 2018. She filed the subject interlocutory applications, viz. As all these petitions were dismissed by the trial Court, C.R.P. Nos. 457 of 2021, 1179 of 2020, 482 of 2021, 470 of 2021 and 546 of 2021 are filed respectively. 3. In the other batch of revisions, the revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 475 of 2018. She filed the subject interlocutory applications, viz. I.A. No. 84 of 2020 under Section 151 CPC to reopen the plaintiff’s side evidence to adduce further evidence; I.A. No. 85 of 2020 under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall PW-1 for marking the passbook; I.A. No. 86 of 2020 under Order VII Rule 14(iii) CPC to accord permission to file the passbook copy relating to Palika Chandrarao; I.A. No. 87 of 2020 under Order XVI Rules 6 and 7 CPC to issue summons to the Tahasildar, Kakinada Rural, to produce relevant records like passbook for the year 1985-86, 1995-96 relating to the property of Palika Chandra Rao; and I.A. No. 88 of 2020 under Order XVI Rules 6 and 7 CPC to issue summons to the witness, Smt. Gogineni Swarupa Rani, rep. by GPA Holder, Sri Komatineni Seetharamayya to produce the original pattadar passbook issued by Tahasildar, Kakinada Rural. Aggrieved by the dismissal of these applications, C.R.P. Nos. 459 of 2021, 1178 of 2020, 514 of 2021, 462 of 2021 and 512 of 2021 are filed respectively. 4. Heard Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs and Sri M.V. Manisekhar, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant. 5. The respondent/defendant in all these revisions and the subject matter involved in both the suits being one and the same in all these revisions, these revisions are heard and are being disposed of by this common order. 6. The facts necessary for disposal of these revision petitions, briefly stated, are as follows: The suits, viz. O.S. No. 474 of 2018 and 475 of 2018 are filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner. 6. The facts necessary for disposal of these revision petitions, briefly stated, are as follows: The suits, viz. O.S. No. 474 of 2018 and 475 of 2018 are filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner. When the matter is posted for arguments, and while going through the record, it is noticed that the passbook copy relating to Palika Chandrarao @ Ramachandrarao in S. No. 197/4, patta No. 228 of Ramanayyapeta village, Kakinada Rural obtained from the Tahasildar office, Kakinada Rural, has not been filed into the Court as the same is mixed up in the record. The original passbooks issued by the office of the Tahasildar, Kakinada Rural, are with Gogineni Swarupa Rani, represented by her GPA Holder, Sri Komatineni Seetharamayya. Hence, it has become necessary for the plaintiffs to summon the said witness to produce the original landlord pass book and pattadar passbook standing in the name of Palika Chandra Rao relating to the plaint schedule property and for that purpose, petitions to reopen the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs and receive the document as well as issuing of summons to the Tahasildar, Kakinada Rural to produce the relevant record like adangals for the year 1985-86, 1995-96 relating to the property of Palika Chandra Rao situated in S. No. 197/4 of Patta No. 228 of Ramanayyapeta village, Kakinada Rural were filed. There are no willful laches or negligence on the part of the plaintiffs in not filing these petitions earlier. 7. The respondent/defendant filed counter opposing the petitions. It was contended in the counter as follows: The 1st petitioner himself was examined as PW-1 on 19.02.2019 and his cross-examination was done on 08.03.2019 and there was no whisper regarding the mutation of the name of Palika Ramachandra Rao in the revenue records, his previous title holder as claimed. PW-2 was examined on 22.08.2019 and was cross-examined on 30.08.2019. PW-3 was examined on 04.12.2019 and the evidence of plaintiff was closed on 11.12.2019 and subsequently, the matter is posted for the evidence of the defendant. There is no basis in the plaint, pleadings as well as in the affidavit that the name of Palika Ramachandra Rao is mutated place in the revenue records. PW-3 was examined on 04.12.2019 and the evidence of plaintiff was closed on 11.12.2019 and subsequently, the matter is posted for the evidence of the defendant. There is no basis in the plaint, pleadings as well as in the affidavit that the name of Palika Ramachandra Rao is mutated place in the revenue records. Gogineni Raja Babu in his cross-examination admitted that nowhere it is mentioned that the name of Palika Ramachandra Rao was shown as landholder in S.No. 197/4. Hence, the question of summoning the power of attorney holder of Gogineni Swaroopa Rani to file ryotwari pass book before the Court is of no use and Gogineni Raja Babu is a person behind the entire transaction relating to the property. Hence, the petitioners/plaintiffs have got every knowledge of the matter and filing of the documents and its contents and no rejoinder or reply was filed. In the cross-examination done on 19.02.2019, it is admitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that the original of exhibit A2, Will, is with Gogineni Swaroopa Rani. The Will is fabricated and the documents claimed are fabricated. The claim of the petitioners is baseless, devoid of merits and intended only to drag on the matter. The defendant relied on the decisions in Vadiraj Nagappa Vernekar vs. Sharadchandra Prabhkar Gogate, (2009) 4 SCC 410 and Bagai Construction vs. Gupta Building Material Store, (2013) 3 MLJ 185 (SC). There are no bona fides in filing these petitions. The petitions are liable to be dismissed. 8. The trial Court dismissed all the petitions holding that the documents are in exclusive possession of the plaintiffs during entire trial but for the reasons known, they were not placed on record and such applications to fill up the lacunae cannot be permitted to be received at a belated stage after conclusion of the evidence. 9. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs preferred these revision petitions raising mainly the following grounds: (i) The trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 14 (iii) CPC to file the passbook copy obtained from Tahasildar, Kakinada Rural relating to Palika Chandra Rao. (ii) No prejudice would be caused to the opposite party if the passbook issued by the Tahasildar, Kakinada Rural are received in evidence. (ii) No prejudice would be caused to the opposite party if the passbook issued by the Tahasildar, Kakinada Rural are received in evidence. (iii) The trial Court ought to have seen that filing of the petition to recall PW-1 for the purpose of marking the document is in accordance with law as the said application is filed as the document was mixed up in the record and it was found recently. (iv) The present suits is (are) filed for grant of injunction but not for declaration and the trial Court failed to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and mechanically dismissed the applications. 10. At the outset, C.R.P. Nos. 462 of 2021 and 470 of 2021, 512 of 2021 and 546 of 2021 and 514 of 2021 and 482 of 2021 are taken up. C.R.P. No. 462 of 2021 and 470 of 2021: 11. Since the petitions are filed to summon the Tahasildar to produce the relevant revenue records, it is vehemently contended that the said Tahasildar has no custody of the document sought to be summoned because the suit property is covered by Kakinada Urban, but not Rural and a detailed enquiry was also ordered in this regard since the issuance of the document filed by the plaintiffs is fake and could not have been issued by Tahasildar of Kakinada Rural. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent filed earlier government orders issued showing division of the mandals etc. The then existing Municipal Corporation, Kakinada was proposed to be divided and a new mandal with name Kakinada Rural mandal was proposed to be established with effect from 25.10.1989 by bifurcating the existing Kakinada mandal. One such area is Ramanayyapeta to be included in the proposed new mandal. G.O.Ms. No. 497 Revenue (Mandalamulu-1) department, dated 16.05.1985 was published in the East Godavari District Gazette dated 25.05.1985 to take with effect from 25.10.1989. Accordingly, G.O.Ms. No. 1042, dated 21.10.1989, was published in East Godavari District Gazette, dated 25.10.1989 forming the new mandals with the name ‘Kakinda Rural’ mandal with headquarters at Kakinada, East Godavari District containing fifteen (15) mandals which included Ramanayyapeta. Accordingly, G.O.Ms. No. 1042, dated 21.10.1989, was published in East Godavari District Gazette, dated 25.10.1989 forming the new mandals with the name ‘Kakinda Rural’ mandal with headquarters at Kakinada, East Godavari District containing fifteen (15) mandals which included Ramanayyapeta. Thereafter, a notification under Section 3(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974 (Act 7 of 1974) was published in East Godavari District Gazette, dated 19.03.1994, to include the municipal areas of Ramanayyapeta and Suryaraopeta in ‘Kakinada Urban’ mandal and non-municipal areas of these villages in ‘Kakinada Rural’ mandal and objections were invited on the above proposals. The final notification has not been placed before this Court. However, there is no dispute about the formation of these two mandals as shown in the schedule annexed thereto. Thus, the suit schedule property which is shown to be Municipal Corporation, Kakinada falls within the jurisdiction of ‘Kakinada Urban’ mandal. Some other documents obtained under the Right to Information Act to show the same facts are filed, but they are not considered as they are not filed before the trial Court. Therefore, as rightly contended, no purpose would be served by summoning the Tahasildar of Kakinada Rural to produce the documents called for. As such, there is no merit in the revision petition. Accordingly, the Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed. C.R.P. No. 512 of 2021 and 546 of 2021: 12. Since the revision petitioner intends to issue summons to the witness to produce the original pattadar passbooks etc., it must be first established that there exists such a document with the party to be summoned. But, there is no material placed by the petitioner to show that such document exists and the party to be summoned is in its possession. In addition to that, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the document alleged to have been issued by the Tahasildar of Kakinada Rural has no jurisdiction to issue any such document as the property involved in the suit is within the jurisdiction of Tahasildar, Kakinada Urban, but not rural and in fact, an enquiry was also ordered for issuing such a document. Therefore, for all the above reasons, the petitioner has no merit in seeking the prayer in I.A. No. 88 of 2020 and the order impugned in the revision does not require any interference. Thus, this revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed. Therefore, for all the above reasons, the petitioner has no merit in seeking the prayer in I.A. No. 88 of 2020 and the order impugned in the revision does not require any interference. Thus, this revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed. C.R.P. No. 514 of 2021 and 482 of 2021: 13. The revision petitioner seeks to file copy of the passbook relating to Pilaka Chadra Rao alleged to have been obtained from the office of the Tahasildar Rural for the purpose of marking the same as an exhibit on the plaintiff’s side stating that the original passbook is with Gogineni Swaroopa represented by her GPA Holder, K. Sitaramaiah, and the document now proposed to be filed was mixed up in his record and thus, it could not be filed earlier in evidence. The trial Court observed that if the plaintiff has obtained the attested copy of the pattadar passbook of Palilka Chandra Rao long back, the plaintiff could not explain as to why and how the date 18.12.2019 was mentioned underneath of the signature of the Deputy Tahasildar, Kakinada Rural on the attested copy of the passbook and therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that the said document was mixed up with the record is false. 14. The petition is mainly opposed and it was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the said document does not exist and it could only be a fake document since the suit schedule property falls within the jurisdiction of the Tahasildar, Kakinada Urban, but not Rural, and in fact, an enquiry was also ordered for issuing fake document. Even in the schedule given in the plaint, the property is shown to be within the municipal corporation area, and thereby, the same falls within the jurisdiction of Tahasildar, Kakinada Urban and cannot fall within the non-municipal area which is within the jurisdiction of the Tahasildar, Kakinada rural. 15. That apart, as already observed, a perusal of the government orders etc., relating to division of Kakinada Urban and Rural areas which are submitted before this Court, the suit schedule property clearly falls within the jurisdiction of Tahasildar, Kakinada Urban, but not Rural. Thus, there is prima facie material to oppose the petition to grant permission to file a document which could not have existed at all. Thus, there is prima facie material to oppose the petition to grant permission to file a document which could not have existed at all. Moreover, several adjournments were also granted by this Court to show that the suit schedule property falls within the jurisdiction of Tahasildar, Kakinada Rural, but the same could not be shown and established. On the other hand, the material placed before this Court support the contention of the respondent that the plaint schedule property falls within the jurisdiction of the Tahasildar, Kakinada Urban. Under these circumstances, there is no merit in this revision and the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. 16. Since C.R.P. Nos. 462 of 2021 and 470 of 2021, 512 of 2021 and 546 of 2021 and 514 of 2021 and 482 of 2021 are liable for dismissal, C.R.P. Nos. 457 of 2021, 459 of 2021 filed against refusal of the prayer to reopen the suit and recall PW-1 are also liable to be dismissed. Consequently, C.R.P. Nos. 1178 of 2020 and 1179 of 2020 which are filed against the orders of refusal to mark the passbook relating to the Palika Chandra Rao are also liable for dismissal. 17. In the result, all the revision petitions are dismissed. 18. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.