Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1449 (TS)

T. Chandrasekhar v. Kasturi Bai

2025-11-11

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

body2025
ORDER : 1 . This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order dated 09.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.239 of 2023 in O.S.No.365 of 2015 on the file of learned I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri. 2. Petitioner herein is defendant No.2, respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff and respondent No.2 herein is defendant No.1, in the suit. 3 . Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court erred in dismissing the petition for receiving documents on the ground that the respondent No.1-plaintiff’s evidence and the other witnesses of the plaintiff are already over and therefore the plaintiff or his witnesses could not be confronted with the said documents. The learned trial Court failed to see that the Rules of Procedure are handmaide of justice and not a mistress of justice. The learned trial Court failed to examine the contents of the written statement, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the plaintiff has taken away several documents from the Bank locker. The learned Trial Court failed to examine the same and the petitioner- defendant No.2 has pleaded in the written statement that the respondent No.1-plaintiff has agreed to give up her rights over the suit schedule property vide settlement dated 19.09.2005 for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. Counsel to substantiate his contentions, has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Sugandhi (Dead) by Legal Representatives and another v. P. Rajkumar Represented by his Power agent Imam Oli , (2020) 10 SCC 706 and (ii) Levaku Pedda Reddamma and others v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma and another , 2022 Supreme (SC) 1492. 4. Notice to respondent No.1 is served, but, none appeared. 5. The General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of the petitioner-defendant No.2 herein by name C.Raghu has filed his evidence affidavit before the Trial Court as DW-1 and also filed application to receive the documents vide I.A.No.239 of 2023 under Order VIII Rule 1-A r/w. Section 151 of CPC seeking leave of the Court to receive the documents in support of his contentions. 6. Respondent No.1, who is respondent No.1, in the above said application has filed his counter contending that the documents are not relevant to the facts of the case. 7. 6. Respondent No.1, who is respondent No.1, in the above said application has filed his counter contending that the documents are not relevant to the facts of the case. 7. The learned trial Court after going through the material on record has dismissed I.A.No.239 of 2023, on 09.08.2023, which is impugned in the Civil Revision Petition. 8. The case of the respondent No.1-plaintiff is that after the death of her father she was residing in the suit schedule property i.e., house bearing No.36-25 (old No.19-20/29) along with defendant Nos.1 and 2 (petitioner and respondent Nos.2 herein) and thereafter she got married to one Mr.M.M. Kumar. At that time she was working as House Surgeon, and all the marriage expenses were borne by her and later shifted to Bangalore and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are residing in the suit schedule property. 9. Petitioner herein, who is defendant No.2, in the suit has filed his written statement contending that himself and defendant No.1 therein are residing in the said House and paying taxes and other charges to the authorities concerned and the first defendant is a mentally challenged person and is a spinster, who has been taken care by the petitioner-defendant No.2. It is further stated in the written statement that the original document of the House property which were in the bank locker was taken away by the respondent No.1-plaintiff along with valuables when her father was sick and were to be returned to the defendants. In the year 2005, plaintiff therein (respondent No.1 herein) became greedy made a demand that she would be paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for return of original title deeds and connected documents of the House and he paid an amount Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.09.2005 vide Demand Draft bearing No.873355, dated 17.09.2005. 10 . The documents filed along with the application in I.A.No.239 of 2023 are original property documents, bills, payments, receipts of electricity bills, water supply bills and original acknowledgement receipts, original copy of Andhra Bank, Demand Draft receipts and original copy of letter addressed from plaintiff to defendant No.2, and photographs. 11. Petitioner-defendant No.2 has specifically contented that in the written statement that he is paying property tax in respect of plaint schedule property. The learned trial Court has lost sight of the same and held that they are not helpful to the case of the petitioner-defendant No.2. 11. Petitioner-defendant No.2 has specifically contented that in the written statement that he is paying property tax in respect of plaint schedule property. The learned trial Court has lost sight of the same and held that they are not helpful to the case of the petitioner-defendant No.2. Respondent No.1-plaintiff in the plaint has admitted in para No.6 that she received Rs.1,00,000/- from her brother (petitioner herein) as a good will on 19.09.2005. 12 . In so far as the document dated 24.04.2000 is concerned, there is no pleading with regard to the same in the written statement and the learned trial Court has rightly held that in absence of any pleading the documents cannot be considered. 13. Property tax receipt dated 10.08.1999 goes to show that it is pertaining to house bearing No.36-25, it does not pertain to the suit schedule property, hence the said document cannot be considered. 14. In case of Sugandhi the Supreme Court held that the procedure is handmaid of justice - procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in way of Court while doing substantial justice. 15. In case of Levaku Pedda Reddamma the Supreme Court held that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and, therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have impose some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself. 16. The decisions cited by the learned senior counsel in support of his contentions are applicable to the case on hand. The Property Tax Receipt, dated 10.08.1999 and the document dated 24.04.2000 are not based on any pleadings, hence, they cannot be considered. The rest of the documents filed along with the application (I.A.No.239 of 2023) are pertaining to the suit schedule property and they are to be taken on record and the order passed by the learned trial Court is perverse and this Court is inclined to interfere with the same. 17. In view of the above said reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed as indicated in the order. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders if any shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous Petitions shall stand closed.