Vakala Mani v. Vakala Rambabu
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed by a plaintiff challenging the lower court's order allowing defendants to adduce evidence through another witness after the plaintiff finished presenting evidence. The court held that the plaintiff's claim was based on a settlement deed while the defendants relied on a will. Since the defendants did not themselves set up the facts necessit
What did the court decide?
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
What the court decided
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
CIVIL REVISI0N PETITION No.322 OF 2017
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 3.1.2017 in I.A. No.516 of 2016 in O.S. No.560 of 2007 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District.
- The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit.
- He filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents 1 to 4 on the basis of Registered Settlement Deed dt. 6.12.2016 executed by her husband V. Satti Babu in her favour and claiming to be in possession of the property on the basis of the said Settlement Deed.
- The 3rd respondent herein/1st defendant filed a written statement claiming that the suit schedule property belonged to one V. Satyavathi, who is the mother of the respondents 1 & 2, that he was a tenant of the said Satyavathi, that she executed a Will dt. 8.8.2006 in favour of the respondents 1 & 2, that she died on 15.8.2006, and on her death they inherited the property. He further contended that a Sale Deed dt. 29.10.2007 was executed by the respondents 1 & 2 in his favour. He denied the possession of the petitioner and stated that the documents relied upon by the petitioner are concocted.
- The respondents 1 & 2 /defendants 2 & 3 adopted the written statement of 3rd respondent/defendant No.1.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether allowing a defendant to produce documentary evidence necessitated a witness to sum up per Order 18 Rule 3A of the CPC.
Whether defendants who adopted a written statement adopted by another defendant have an independent right to cross-examine witnesses introduced by the prior defendant.
Whether the lower court committed any error in law by permitting a document to be adduced through documents written by a witness who had already been examined.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
The Petitioner
- respondent
The Respondents
Coram
M.S. Rama Chandra Rao
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · February
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRP/322/2017
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court