Harijana Venkateswarlu Vs S Jaganatha Gupta

Kurnool, allo^ passed by the Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, l.A.No.863 of 2024 in O.S.No.45 of 2016 on the file^{ofHon’blePrincipal} Ci/ir(Seniof,Division) Judge, Kurnool.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in^{O.S.No.45of2016onthe} file of Principal (Senior Division) Civil Judge, Kurnool.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. ANUMULA KARTHIK REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents No.1: SRI. VARUN BYREDDY

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

^VPHCOI0095252025

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶27

[3311]

¶28

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

Monday, the Fifth day of May, Two Thousand and Twenty^Five

¶30

Present

¶31

The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi

¶32

Civil Revision Petition No: 506 of 2025

¶33

Between:

¶34

Harijana Venkateswarlu and others

¶35

...Petitioners

¶36

and

¶37

S. Jaganatha Gupta and others

¶38

...Respondents

¶39

Counsel for the petitioners:

¶40

I.Anumula Karthik Reddy

¶41

Counsel for the respondents:

¶42

I.Varun Byreddy

¶43

The Court made the following:

2

C.R.P.No.506 of 2025

4

ORDER:

This revision petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 30.01.2025 dismissing I.A.No.863 of 2024 in O.S.No.45 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool filed by the^defendants under Order XVI, Rule 1(3) and Section 151 C.P.C. to summon the following

¶49

persons;

¶50

Name	Purpose
The Tahsildar,	To produce adangals for the years 2004 to till
Kallur Mandal,	today for Sy.No.55/1 of Chinna Tekur Village and
Kallur.	its form 1-B register and to give evidence
The Sub-Registrar	To bring record relating to the valuation of
Kallur.	Sy.Nos.55/1 and 55/2 of Chinna Tekur Village and togiveevidenceinthisregard.

¶51

The respondent / plaintiff filed the suit for declaration^oftitleover the plaint schedule property of 0.54 cents in Survey^{No.55/2ofChinna} Tekur Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District, claiming that the petitioners / defendants executed a registered sale deed dated 01.12.2004 in favour of the respondent / plaintiff. The defendants contended that the sale deed was obtained fraudulently and that they had not delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to the respondent and also that the revenue records relating^{totheproperty} still stand in their name. The petitioners filed suit^{inO.S.No.397of2016} on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, against the respondent for cancellation of the very same sale deed. The respondent filed two adangals claiming that the revenue^recordsshow his possession, though these documents are not found^{intheofficeof} the Tahsildar. Therefore, the petitioners further contended that it is reqoked to prove the entries in the revenue records relating to the^laliit

¶52

3

¶53

C.R.P.No.506 of 2025

¶54

^schedule property in respect of enjoyment of the property.^Further,the petitioners stated that the value of the plaint schedule property as on 01.12.2004, was Rs.7,03,000/- whereas the registered^saledeed for 0.54 cents was registered with a value of Rs.50,000/- by manipulation and therefore, it is necessary to summon the Sub-Registrar, to give evidence and produce relevant record. With such contention, the petitioners filed the above said petition. 3. The respondent / plaintiff resisted the petition by filing counter, denying the contents of the petition and further stated that the petition was filed only to drag on the case and delay justice and that the registered sale deed was voluntarily executed by the petitionersand the suit in O.S.No.397 of 2016 was filed with mala fide intention.

¶55

After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that two adangals were filed in O.S.No.397^{of2016butnotin} O.S.No.45 of 2016 and that the petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.397 of 2016 and filed I.A.No.774 of 2024 for the very same relief and it was dismissed on 27.12.2024 and consequently,^thesame relief cannot be sought again. It was further observed^thatthere is no valuation certificate filed by the petitioners to show that as on 01.12.2004 i.e., the date of execution of the registered sale deed, the valuation of the plaint schedule property was Rs.7,03,000/-^without taking steps by the petitioners to file such document, the relief to summon the Sub-Registrar cannot be granted.

¶56

Aggrieved by the order this revision petition was filed.

¶57

Aggrieved by the order this revision petition was filed.

¶58

Insofar as the petition to summon the Tahsildar is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that unless the original record is summoned, the correctness of the adangal produced before the Court in evidence could not be decided as they were manipulated. Though the transaction in dispute relates to the year 2004, the name of

¶59

4

¶60

C.R.P.No.506 of 2025

¶61

the vendors continued to remain in the revenue records, but suddenly the entry was changed in the copy of the adangal filed by the respondent without indicating as to how the entry in the adangal was changed, but the entry for the subsequent year shows again the name of the vendors and therefore, it is necessary to summon^{thewitnessand} mere filing of the certified copies would not help to prove the truth. He further submitted that in fact, the respondent reported no counter, however the trial Court dismissed the petition, instead of summoning the witness to get the best evidence.

¶62

^

¶63

The learned counsel for the 1®* respondent opposed the petition submitting that the petitioners have to prove their^{owncaseandcannot} rely on the weakness of the case of the other side^{andtherefore,there} is no need to summon the witness.

¶64

Since the genuineness of the record relating to adangals^canbe examined by the trial Court only with reference to^{theoriginalrecord} relating to the record filed before the Court, it is^{necessarytosummon} the concerned official. Moreover, in addition thereto, the petitioners sought the same record relating to other faslis and^alsoForm 1-B register and to give evidence. As it is heavy record^{spreadingfromthe} year 2004 to till date as per the relief sought for^{productionofadangal} registers, while allowing the relief for production^oftherecord, it can be limited to the period from 2004 to the date of filing^{ofthesuiti.e.,the} year 2016.

¶65

The relief with regard to production of form 1-B register^relevant to the suit schedule property shall also be produced^{andthewitness} i.e., the Tahsildar, Kallur Mandal, Kallur shall also^{giveevidence.}

¶66

After giving evidence, if any register is marked in^evidence,the petitioners shall apply for certified copy of such^{documentsmarkedand}

¶67

5

¶68

C.R.P.No.506 of 2025

¶69

substitute the same for the original and the trial^{Courtshallforthwith} return the original registers to the Tahsildar.

¶70

Insofar as the record sought to be produced by the Sub-Registrar, Kallur and giving evidence is concerned, the purpose^{istoestablishthat} the document was registered for value for less than the then existing market value as per the Registrar’s office. Since, it is to be clarified by the Sub-Registrar concerned as to how the said document was registered for value less than the then market value of the property, it is necessary to summon the witness with the relevant record. As such, this petition also needs to be allowed.

¶71

In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 in I.A.No.863 of 2024 in O.S.No.45 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Principal^Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶72

Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand^vacated.

¶73

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand^closed.

¶74

//TRUE COPY//

¶75

Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶76

To,

¶77