Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 133 (AP)

Rentala Sri Mahalakshmi v. Chunchu Malyadri

2025-01-22

NYAPATHY VIJAY

body2025
ORDER : NYAPATHY VIJAY, J. CRP.No.1321 of 2020 is filed questioning the order dated 11.03.2020 in I.A.No.182 of 2020 in O.S.No.158 of 2010 passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The I.A. was filed to reopen the suit for the purpose of issuing summons to the Joint Sub-Registrar, Vijayawada for production of the Register of Thumb impressions and signatures of Majumdar Srinivasa Rao. 2. CRP.No.1323 of 2020 is filed questioning the order dated 11.03.2020 in I.A.No.183 of 2020 in O.S.No.158 of 2010 passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The I.A. was filed to send original sale agreement (Ex.A.23) alleged to have been executed by Majumdar Srinivasa Rao in favour of Chunchu Malyadri (Defendant No.1), which was filed in O.S.No.115 of 2007 on the file of Second Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. 3. CRP.No.1324 of 2020 is filed questioning the order dated 11.03.2020 in I.A.No.184 of 2020 in O.S.No.158 of 2010 passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The I.A. was filed to summon to the Joint Sub Registrar, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada for production of thumb impressions register containing the thumb impressions and the signatures of Majumdar Srinivasa Rao relating to registered sale deed dated 18.11.1993. 4. CRP.No.1325 of 2020 is filed questioning the order dated 11.03.2020 in I.A.No.181 of 2020 in O.S.No.158 of 2010 passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The I.A. was filed to send the original sale agreement, alleged to be executed by Majumdar Srinivsa Rao and his original signatures received from the Office of Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion. 5. Brief facts of the case: The Petitioner is the plaintiff. The suit was filed for declaration of title and to declare the registered sale deeds bearing Nos.4076/2008, 4077/2008, 4078/2008 and 4079/2008 dated 29.07.2008 before the District Registrar, Vijayawada as null and void and for consequential relief of recovery of possession. As per the plaint, the Petitioner is the absolute owner of the schedule property. It was pleaded that one Majumdar Srinivasa Rao and his brothers had entered into sale agreement on 25.04.1972 for sale of plaint schedule property. As disputes arose between the parties thereto, the issue was said to have been referred to arbitration and an award was passed on 22.07.1995 which was subsequently made rule of Court by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in O.S.No.412 of 1995. As disputes arose between the parties thereto, the issue was said to have been referred to arbitration and an award was passed on 22.07.1995 which was subsequently made rule of Court by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in O.S.No.412 of 1995. The award under the decree and judgment was said to have been registered in the Office of the Vijayawada Sub Registrar as Document No.4566/1995. 6. While so, defendant Nos.1 to 4 in collusion with defendant No.5, who is none other than son of Majumdar Srinivasa Rao, clandestinely brought into existence registered sale deeds referred above in the year 2008. The genesis for execution of the above referred disputed registered sale deeds is an agreement of sale dated 02.01.1993, said to have been executed by late Majumdar Srinivasa Rao in favour of defendant No.1. On the strength of the said sale agreement, O.S.No.115 of 2007 was filed before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada against defendant No.5 as late Majumdar Srinivasa Rao died on 09.04.2005 without executing the registered sale deeds. In the process, a Lok Adalat award was passed on 01.05.2007 and consequently, the disputed sale deeds were executed in E.P.No.92 of 2007. As the disputed registered sale deeds were brought into existence to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs, the suit was filed for the above mentioned reliefs. 7. The defendants filed their written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff. While the suit was at the stage of arguments, the above mentioned applications were filed by the Petitioner and the applications, on contest, were dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, the civil revision petitions. 8. Heard Sri Sai Vihari, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the Respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that a fraud is perpetuated against the Petitioner and the above applications are absolutely necessary to prove the fraud said to be perpetuated. It is his contention that Ex.A.23 sale agreement dated 02.01.1993 alleged to have been executed in favour of defendant No.1 is a fabricated and forged document. 10. In the course of evidence of defendants, as many as 47 documents were marked which were marked as Exs.B.1 to Ex.B.47. (Ex.B.39 is the certified copy of the Registered sale deed No.6932/1993 dated 18.11.1993 executed by late Majumdar Srinivasa Rao in favour of Majumdar Chakrapani). 10. In the course of evidence of defendants, as many as 47 documents were marked which were marked as Exs.B.1 to Ex.B.47. (Ex.B.39 is the certified copy of the Registered sale deed No.6932/1993 dated 18.11.1993 executed by late Majumdar Srinivasa Rao in favour of Majumdar Chakrapani). In the course of trial, the Petitioner had filed I.A.No.423 of 2018 to summon certain documents from the Office of Joint Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada relating to the Registers containing the thumb impressions/signatures of Majumdar Srinivasa Rao for comparison with the signatures on the disputed sale agreement dated 02.01.1993. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on 27.04.2018 and the same was confirmed by this Court in CRP.No.3159 of 2018. The reason for dismissal of the said application was that there was no challenge to the Lok Adalat award in O.S.No.115 of 2007. 11. The Petitioner thereafter filed I.A.No.697 of 2018 for amendment of plaint by including the challenge to the Lok Adalath Award. The said application was allowed on 19.11.2018 and confirmed by this Court as well as by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Consequently, an additional issue was framed. In view of the additional issue, the Petitioner again filed above applications since the genesis of dismissal of I.A.No.423 of 2018 to summon necessary documents from the Office of the Sub Registrar had been un done in view of the amendment application. The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that considering the reason given for filing the present applications, the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the same. 12. Learned counsel for the Respondents contended that the suit being one for declaration of title, it is the primary responsibility of the Petitioner to establish his case rather than relying on the genuineness of the documents in favour of the defendants. It is in that context, the counsel submitted that the above applications are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of disposal. It was further contended that in the I.A filed for seeking amendment, the Petitioner submitted that no fresh trial is required and the amendment would not delay the disposal of the suit and it was in that context, the amendment application was allowed. By virtue of the present applications, the Petitioner is going back on his statement made in the Court in writing that no further evidence would be required. 13. By virtue of the present applications, the Petitioner is going back on his statement made in the Court in writing that no further evidence would be required. 13. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court opines that the suit being one for declaration of title, it is for the plaintiff to establish his right over the schedule property under the arbitral award dated 22.07.1995 and the consequential registration of arbitral award No.4566/95. It hardly matters if the sale agreement dated 02.01.1993 is fabricated or forged from that view point. 14. Secondly, the Petitioner in the applications seeking amendment had specifically stated at para 6 that the amendment will not cause to conduct any fresh trial nor the same will delay the disposal of the suit. The necessary part of Para 6.3 of the affidavit is extracted below: “I submit that the proposed amendment is in obedience to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, vide orders, dt. 22.6.2018 in CRP.3159/2018, but not due to lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff. As such the proposed amendment would not come within the ambit of proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC. As already submitted, evidence has already been led by both parties basing on the rival contentions in regard to the controversy surrounding the decree in O.S.No.115/2007 and the resulting four sale deeds, referred to above. The present proposed amendment, therefore, shall not alter the nature or character of the suit nor will the same enlarge the scope of the suit. I respectfully submit that the proposed amendment shall not cause to conduct any fresh trial. So also, the same shall not delay the disposal of the suit nor shall the same cause prejudice to the other side. There shall not be any change in the valuation of the Suit or the Court Fee paid thereon, as the proposed amendment relates to an Ancillary Relief incidental to the main or substantial relief sought by the plaintiff.” 15. In view of the specific submission that no fresh trial would be required, the present applications of the Petitioner are not in consonance with his statement made in the above mentioned I.A. Apart from that, no explanation is forth coming in the affidavits filed in support of the present I.A. explaining the turn around by the Petitioner on this aspect. 16. 16. Thirdly, the trial Court framed additional issues pursuant to the amendment of plaint. The additional two issues read as under: 1. Whether the Lok Adalath Award dated 01.05.2007 in O.S.No.115/2007 on the file of III Additional Senior civil Judge, Vijayawada is null and void? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to question the Lok Adalath Award in Civil Court? 17. After framing the above issues, the contesting parties reported no additional evidence on additional issues and the suit was posted for arguments. At that stage, the present applications were filed. No explanation is forthcoming on this change of stance. The opportunistic approach of the Petitioners does not reflect bona fides. 18. Fourthly, the Petitioner filed I.A.No.184 of 2020 to summon the Joint Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada for production of thumb impressions register containing the thumb impressions and signatures of Majumdar Srinivasa Rao relating to registered sale deed dated 18.11.1993 (Ex.A.39) vide Document No.6932/1993 registered on 22.11.1993. This application seeking to summon the production of register for the purpose of comparison cannot be ordered as register containing thumb impressions pertain not only to the thumb impressions and signatures of late Majumdar Srinivasa Rao, but also of various persons who executed sale deeds by various parties. The Register is a statutorily maintained register and will be in the custody of the Sub Registrar. It would not be prudent to send such register to expert for his opinion. The Petitioner rather than calling for the original register could have filed an application for comparing the signatures with the photographs of the originals as held in Laxmipat Choraria and others v. State of Maharashtra , [ AIR 1968 SC 938 ] at the first instance. Such an approach would have reflected his bona fides rather than reeling out application after application and delaying the suit. 19. Therefore, on this ground also the Petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought and this Court is not inclined to entertain the revision petitions and the same are dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.