Disposed

Palgudi Santhamma v. v Rajamma

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Jul 2024CRP/1096/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging the Trial Court's order rejecting a photocopy of a partition document. The bench held there was no necessity for the photocopy and remitted the admissibility matter for consideration when the original is marked as an exhibit.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed leaving it open to the petitioner to seek to mark the original of the document at which stage admissibility may be considered.

Palgudi Santhamma Vs v Rajamma — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PFTITION NO: inQfi HF ono>.

¶4

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 29-08-2023 made in I.A. No. 305 of 2023 in O.S. No. 268 Of 2012 on the file of the court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati

¶5

Between:

¶6

Palgudi Santhamma, W/o P. Audikesavulu Naidu, Hindu, aged about 58 years Cultivation, R/at Kuchivaripalle Village Ramireddipalle Post, Chandragiri Mandal Chittoor District.

¶7

...Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶8

AND

¶9

V. Rajamma, (Died)

¶10

D. Kasthuri, W/o Surendra Babu Hindu aged about 68 years r/at D.No. 10/3, Venkataramana Layout Post Office road Maruthi Seva Nagar, Bangiore-33 Karnataka State.

¶11

lA NO: 1 OF 7090.

¶12

...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

¶13

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No.268 of 2012 on the file of the court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati pending disposal of the above civil revision petition. Counsel for the Petitloner:SRI J. KRISHNA PRANEETH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI D. KRISHNA MURTHY The Court made the following:

}

APHC010161592024

»■

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special'Original Jurisdiction)

¶19

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶20

[3206]

¶21

PRESENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶23

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1096/2024

Between:

Palgudi Santhamma

...PETITIONER

AND

V Rajamma and Others

...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶31

1.J KRISHNA PRANEETH

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶33

1.D KRISHNA MURTHY

¶34

¶35

The Court made the following order:

¶36

The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.268 of 2012 before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati for^{declarationandpermanent} injunction restraining the respondents from interfering^{withthepossessionof} the petitioner over the suit scheduled property.

¶37

One of the documents relied upon by the petitioner, to demonstrate ownership and possession over the property is a record of partition titled “bhagapariskhara panchayat kararunama”^{dated14.07.1997.}

¶38

¶39

¶40

At the stage of Trial, the petitioner moved I.A.No.305^of2023to receive two documents. The 1 St document was the photocopy of the bhagapariskhara panchayat kararunama, whose original,^{hadalreadybeen} filed along with the plaint and is before the Court.^{The2"^documentwasa} pattadar adangal obtained through the Right to Information^Act.

¶41

The Trial Court by an order dated 29.08.2023 received the pattadar adangal which was the SI.No.2 document in^{thepetition.However,} the Trial Court refused to receive the ’photocopy of the bhagapariskhara panchayat kararunama whose original is said to have^{alreadybeenfiledalong} with the plaint.

¶42

Aggrieved by the said order dated 29.08.2023, the petitioner^has approached this Court by way of the present Civil Revision^Petition.

¶43

Sri J. Krishna Praneeth, learned counsel for the petitioner^submits that the Trial Court should have permitted the receipt of the photocopy of the bhagapariskhara panchayat kararunama. Apart from that^{themaingrievance} of the petitioner is that the Trial Court had pronounced^{ontheadmissibilityofa} document when the application was for receipt of the^{documentintoCourt.}

¶44

Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents^would submit that the statement of the petitioner, in the^{affidavitfiledin} support^ofthe application, that the original of the said bhagapariskhara panchayat kararunama was already filed along with the plaint,^wouldbe sufficient to

¶45

¶46

¶47

non-suit the petitioner on this document. He would further submit that once th^ original had already been filed, there was no need to file a photocopy and no explanation is forthcoming as to what was the necessity of filing a photocopy of a document which was already in the Court.

¶48

This Court would agree with the contention of Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents that there was no necessity for the photocopy to be placed before the Court. However, this Court would also have to observe that the Trial Court ought not to have gone into the admissibility of the document, as the application was only to receive the document. The question of admissibility of the document would arise only at the stage of the document being marked as an exhibit.

¶49

In the circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to seek to mark the original of the bhagapariskhara panchayat kararunama at which stage. It would be open to the respondent to object to its admissibility on such grounds as the respondents may rely upon. Upon such submissions the Trial Court would have to take a decision of the admissibility of the document. There^shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^shallstand

closed.

//TRUE COPY//

SD/- P.U.V.BHASKARA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR H SECTION OFFICER

¶56

To,

¶57

¶58

The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati, Chittoor District

¶59

¶60

¶61

OneCCto SRI. J. KRISHNA PRANEETH, Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

One CC to SRI. D. KRISHNA MURTHY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶63

Three C.D.Copies

/■

HIGH COURT DATED:12/07/2024

ORDER

CRP.No.1096 of 2024

DISPOSING OF THE CRP

i i

Palgudi Santhamma v. v Rajamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palgudi Santhamma v. v Rajamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nadavalur Dhanajaya Reddy Vs K Raja Reddy

K.Subramanyam Chetty, Vs E.Doraswamy Naidu

Nimmagadda Venkatagiri Varaprasad, Vs Thiruvayipati VijaykumarAT Saathanu Vijaykumar

Duvvuru Mohan Reddy Vs Kintrapakam Uma Maheswar Rao

S Satyanarayanamma Vs K v R R Raju

P.Chengalarayulu Vs P.Krishnamma