Dismissed

Kallamadi Obulamma v. Yerragudi kareem sab(Died by his L.R.S)

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Dec 2021CRP/193/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed civil revision petitions challenging a trial court order refusing to reopen a case for further cross-examination of a witness. The High Court held that recalling the witness was a futile exercise as the witness had already clarified the unavailability of original revenue records, and no new pleading existence justified further examination.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Kallamadi Obulamma Vs Yerragudi kareem… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

C.R.P.Nos.192 and 193 of 2021

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

As parties in both these revision petitions are one and the same and both the revisions arise out of two applications out of the very same suit, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶5

The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.42 of 2010 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Gooty against the deceased 1^st defendant seeking permanent injunction restraining the 1^st defendant from interfering with the plaint schedule property consisting of approximately Ac.3.12 cents of land. The case of the petitioner was that her husband was the owner of Ac.5.00 of land out of which 1.88 cents was acquired by the Government for road widening and compensation was paid to her husband. After demise of her husband on 06.01.2003, the petitioner came into possession and enjoyment of the said land and was running a brick kiln, mechanic shed and residential house. As the deceased 1^st respondent was a stranger to the suit and was trying to trespass into the land, the petitioner is said to have filed the suit.

¶6

During the course of suit proceedings, the 2^nd respondent, who was a subsequent purchaser, was impleaded as defendant No.2. On the death of the deceased 1^st defendant, his legal heirs were added as defendants 3 to 7 in the suit and they are arrayed as respondents 3 to 7 herein. As defendant No.5 had also passed away, his legal heirs were brought on record as defendants 8 to 10 in the suit and they are arrayed as respondent Nos.8 to 10 herein.

¶7

The deceased 1^st respondent had filed a written statement stating that the father-in-law of the petitioner, who was originally the

¶8

RRR,J 2 C.R.P.Nos.192 & 193 of 2021

¶9

owner and in possession of the property, had sold the said land to two persons, viz., Imamuddin Sab and C.A. Rahiman under a registered deed of sale dated 10.09.1984 and the said Imamuddin had sold away Ac.1.00 of land in favour of the deceased 1^st defendant by way of registered deed of sale dated 08.01.1987. On that basis, the deceased 1^st defendant contended that as the father-in-law of the petitioner had sold away the property, the question of the husband of the petitioner or the petitioner still retaining any title in the property does not arise.

¶10

After due trial and hearing the suit was allowed by way of a decree and judgment dated 29.11.2017. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondents herein had filed A.S.No.31 of 2017 in the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Ananthapur at Gooty. This appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial Court.

¶11

In the course of hearing of the appeal, the appellate Court noticed that the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer giving title to the petitioner herein, which was marked as Ex.A.1, had not been dealt with properly by the trial Court. The appellate Court found that while Ex.A.1 was accepted by the trial Court, in one part of the judgment, on the ground that Ex.A.1 proceedings had not been challenged by the vendors of the deceased 1^st defendant, the trial Court had also held that the burden of clarifying Ex.A.1 remains on the revenue authorities. The appellate Court held that these mutually contradictory findings required to be resolved, and directed that the trial Court should appreciate the effect and impact of Ex.A.1 document in accordance with the law after appreciating the evidence placed before it in accordance with law.

¶12

RRR,J 3 C.R.P.Nos.192 & 193 of 2021

¶13

After remand, the matter was again taken up by the trial Court. At that stage, the 2^nd respondent on behalf of the respondents had filed I.A.No.848 of 2018 requesting the trial Court to receive certain documents, which were an endorsement of the Tahsildar Pamidi, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, dated 22.01.2018 and certified copy of the plaint and valuation certificate in O.S.No.1 of 2015 etc.

¶14

This application was dismissed by the trial Court on 31.12.2019 against which C.R.P.No.435 of 2020 has been filed before this Court. This Court by order dated 18.08.2020 had allowed the said revision petition and directed the trial Court to receive the documents filed by the respondents herein.

¶15

In compliance of the said directions of this Court, the trial Court received the said documents and marked them as exhibits.

¶16

At this stage, it is necessary to explain the effect of these documents. It appears that Ex.A.1 is a proceeding of the Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar, Pamidi, which gives title to the petitioner herein. The original of Ex.A.1 could not be marked and only a Xerox copy of the same was marked. The Tahsildar, Pamidi, in the course of his deposition as PW.3, had stated that the record relating to Ex.A.1 is not available, in his office, and the same would show that as Ex.A.1 could not be relied upon, PW.3 had filed an application under R.T.I. Act seeking information about Ex.A.1. The Tahsildar, Pamidi, who is PW.3, issued an answer to the query under the R.T.I Act stating that the original of Ex.A.1 is not available in the office and that as per the Xerox proceedings the names of Imamuddin Sab and Yerragudi Kareem Sab and Yerragudi Allabaksh are not found in the said Xerox proceedings. This endorsement was marked as Ex.B.26 and cross-examination was conducted in relation to these documents. The trial

¶17

RRR,J 4 C.R.P.Nos.192 & 193 of 2021

¶18

Court recorded that DW.1 was cross-examined three times after marking of these documents and the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.70 and 71 of 2021 for reopening the case to examine PW.3 to adduce evidence about Ex.B.26 and Ex.A.1 and other documents by confronting PW.3. The reasons given by the petitioner in support of these applications is that the authenticity and genuineness of the documents under Ex.B.26 to Ex.B.40 as well as Ex.A.1 can be ascertained only by cross-examining the issuing authority who is PW.3 and as such it is necessary to cross-examine PW.3.

¶19

The respondents contested these applications by stating that nothing further can be elicited from PW.3, as he had already stated in his earlier cross-examination that the original of Ex.A.1 was not in the custody of his office and the same is merely recorded in Ex.B.26.

¶20

The trial Court after hearing both sides, was pleased to dismiss the applications holding that the question whether Ex.A.1 is genuine or not is immaterial for recalling PW.3. Elaborate crossexamination has already been conducted on Ex.A.1 and Ex.B.26 and further cross-examination is not necessary. Aggrieved by the said order these civil revision petitions have been filed.

¶21

Heard Sri P. Narasimhulu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶22

The petitioner relied upon Ex.A.1 to demonstrate her case. The said Ex.A.1 is said to be a copy of the proceedings available in the office of Tahsildar, Pamidi. However, the said Tahsildar, Pamidi, as PW.3 has stated that the original on the basis of which Ex.A.1 is said to have been issued, is not available in the office of the Tahsildar. The said

¶23

RRR,J 5 C.R.P.Nos.192 & 193 of 2021

¶24

Tahsildar had also issued Ex.B.26 under the R.T.I. Act, on certain queries raised in the request letter. One of the queries appears to be as to whether the original records relating to Ex.A.1 are available in the office. The Tahsildar gave the answer that such records are not available. This reply of the Tahsildar was marked as Ex.B.26.

¶25

From the contents of the order of the trial Court, it appears that the cross-examination has been carried out on two occasions.

¶26

In the circumstances, the applications filed by the petitioner to cross-examine PW.3 to confront some documents again would be an exercise in futility, as the witness has already answered the questions relating to Ex.A.1, and Ex.B.26, and it is only a reiteration of his statement in Court. In the circumstances, it is not clear as to what the petitioner wishes to elicit from PW.3. There is no pleading either in the affidavit supporting the application before the trial Court or in the affidavit filed before this Court in these revision petitions, to explain as to the purpose for which the petitioner seeks to recall PW.3. The contents in these pleadings are not sufficient to make a case for reopening the evidence.

¶27

In the circumstances, there are no merits in the civil revision petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶29

_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶30

10^th December, 2021 Js.

¶31

RRR,J 6 C.R.P.Nos.192 & 193 of 2021

¶32

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶33

C.R.P.Nos.192 & 193 of 2021

¶34

Js.

¶35

10^th December, 2021

Kallamadi Obulamma v. Yerragudi kareem sab(Died by his L.R.S)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallamadi Obulamma v. Yerragudi kareem sab(Died by his L.R.S)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lekkala Ananda Rao Vs Pedada Venkata Ramana

Polisetty Andalamma Vs Yarramsetti Punyavathi

Bollu Veera Raghavaiah Chowdary Vs Madyanapu Ramakrishna Das

Smt.Alluri Satyavathi Vs Smt.Gudivaka Swarnalatha

Kallamadi Obulamma, Vs Yerragudi kareem sab(Died by his L.R.S)

Kommula Sumathi Devi Vs Chelluboina Bulisatyam