The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to summon the husbands of defendants to examine their income-tax returns and government payment details. The court found the appeal belated and the proposed evidence irrelevant to the property dispute.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
*********
CRP.No.2573 of 2015
Between:
E.T.Chennamma and four others.
… Petitioner/Appellant (s)
and
Hanumanthamma and two others.
… Respondent (s)
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 07.08.2015
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reports/Journals
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2573 OF 2015
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 30.04.2015, passed by the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, Kurnool, in IA.No.308 of 2015 in OS.No.07 of 2010, whereby the Court below dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs herein for issuing summons to the husbands of the defendants 2 and 3 i.e., N.Mahesh Prasad and N.Rajendra
Prasad for causing production of particulars of payment that they have received from the Government in the year 2009 for their contract works and to produce the Income-tax returns for the relevant year.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners/plaintiffs are the owners of suit schedule property and the defendant No.1, however, having no manner of right transferred the same to defendants 2 and 3 by way of registered sale deeds. As such the petitioners filed OS.No.7/2010 for declaration of the sale deed, executed by the 1st defendant in favour of defendants 2 and 3, as void and for injunction restraining the defendants 2 and 3 from alienating and damaging the schedule property. He further submits that to prove the evidence adduced by DW2 in her cross-examination that her husband and the husband of defendant No.2 are the civil contractors and with the money they received in the year 2009, from various departments, they have purchased the suit schedule property; and to find out whether they have paid any sale consideration to defendant No.1, it is very much essential to summon the husbands of Defendants 2 and 3, though D1 admitted that she received sale consideration from Defendants 2 and 3.
On the other hand learned counsel for respondents submits that the trial Court has dismissed the IA stating that since the petitioners have filed the petition at a very belated stage after taking two or three adjournments for arguments. He further states examining the husbands of the defendants 2 and 3 who are not parties to the suit is not relevant.
It is to be seen that the suit is of the year 2010 and already
evidence is closed and the suit is posted for arguments. The trial Court rightly held that even after the matter is posted for arguments, the petitioners took time and belatedly filed this petition. The trial Court also found that the evidence of husbands of defendants 2 and 3 is not relevant for adjudication of the lis in the suit; and that even if the sale considerations are not disclosed in the income-tax returns of the husbands of D2 and D3, it is not competent to the Court to enquire into about non-payment of Income-tax by the husbands of D2 and D3. The trial Court after going into all the aspects elaborately came to a conclusion that the evidence by the husbands of D2 and D3 becomes irrelevant and the same would not be helpful for proper adjudication of the case.
In view of the above, I do not find any error in the order dated 30.04.2015, passed by the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, Kurnool in IA.No.308 of 2015 in OS.No.07 of 2010, warranting interference of this Court by exercising jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the CRP shall stand closed.
_____________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 07.08.2015 tk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application to summon the husbands of the defendants for examination regarding their income-tax returns and payment particulars.
Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with the order dismissing the application for summons.
Whether the evidence of the husbands of the defendants regarding the source of purchase money was relevant for adjudication of the lis.
E.T. Chennamma and four others
Hanumanthamma and two others
A. Rajasheker Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
