Allowed

Mada Suryanarayana , Suresh, v. Potta Simhadri Appala Narasimha Murthy

Telangana HC19 Feb 2010CRP/4338/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two civil revision petitions challenging orders regarding the admissibility of a usufructary mortgage deed. The Court held that since the document was already admitted as evidence in a pending suit between the same parties, it could be received in the current suits, subject to admissibility objections being decided at final disposal.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petitions allowed; impugned orders dated 22-09-2008 in O.S.Nos.8 and 7 of 2006 set aside; document permitted in evidence subject to admissibility decision at suit's final disposal.

Mada Suryanarayana , Suresh, Vs Potta… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.4338 & 4339 OF 2008

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

Heard the learned counsel for both sides. 2. These two civil revision petitions are filed against the orders dated 22-09-2008 in O.S.Nos.8 and 7 of 2006, on the file of the I-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the learned Additional District Judge held that the document dated 09-01-2000 is a usufructary mortgage deed which is a compulsorily registerable document and, therefore, it is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act.

¶4

3. At the time of hearing of the civil revision petitions, it is stated by the learned counsel appearing for both sides that the same document dated 09-01-2000 was previously marked as an exhibit in another suit O.S.No.96 of 2002, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, between the same parties and S.A.No.306 of 2009 arising out of the said suit is pending before this Court.

¶5

4. In the circumstances, inasmuch as the selfsame document is already admitted in evidence in another suit between the same parties, it is considered that the said document can be permitted to be received in

¶6

evidence in these suits viz., O.S.Nos. 7 and 8 of 2006 also subject to the objection raised against its admissibility to be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit so that the further proceedings in trial are not held up.

¶7

5. Hence, without entering into merits of the matter as to the admissibility or otherwise of the document dated 09-01-2000 at this stage, it is directed that the same be received in evidence subject to the objection raised against its admissibility to be considered at the time of disposal of the suit.

¶8

6. In the result, the civil revision petitions are accordingly disposed of and the impugned orders dated 22-09-2008 in

¶9

O.S.Nos.8 and 7 of 2006, on the file of the I-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram dated, are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶11

Dated 19^th February, 2010 Lrkm.

¶12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶13

FRIDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO

¶14

THOUSAND AND TEN

¶15

PRESENT

¶16

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶17

C.R.P.Nos.4338 & 4339 OF 2008

¶18

C.R.P.No.4338 of 2008 Between:Mada Suryanarayana @ Suresh

¶19

…. Petitioner

¶20

A n d

¶21

Potta Simhadrai Appala Narasimha Murthy and others

¶22

C.R.P.No.4339 of 2008 Between:Mada Nageswararao Potta Bharathi

¶23

…Respondents …. Petitioner A n d

¶24

…Respondents

Mada Suryanarayana , Suresh, v. Potta Simhadri Appala Narasimha Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mada Suryanarayana , Suresh, v. Potta Simhadri Appala Narasimha Murthy

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

G. Aswin Kumar and 3 Ors. Vs M/S. Shriram Chits Ltd. Hyd

Sri N.Jayakrishna Vs the Commi.Munil.Corp.Hyd.

Pariti Suryakanthamma Vs Saripalli Srinivasa Rao

Mada Nageswararao, Vs Potta Bharathi

Thondavarapu Malleswararao Vs Chavithina Gangamma

The Commissioner Mch Hyderabad Vs Ramachander D.Hindujal