Allowed

Smt. Gayatri G.Naidu v. Dattatri Rao and 16 others

Telangana HC18 Feb 2021CRP/145/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a civil revision petition, setting aside a lower court order that admitted a rejected 19.6.2002 agreement into evidence. HC held that adding the document undermines earlier findings dismissing the ex parte order and is an unwarranted attempt to delay proceedings. Dismissal of the I.A. ordered.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; impugned order dated 29.12.2020 in I.A. No.567 of 2020 set aside; I.A. dismissed.

Smt. Gayatri G.Naidu Vs Dattatri Rao and 16 others — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAB.AD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

¶6

CIVIL REVISI o N PETITION NO :145 0F 2021

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated 2911212020 passed in lA No.567 ol 2020 in os No.54 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, Ir,4edak District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. Gayatri G.Naidu, W/o, Girish Naidu, aged about 34 Years, R/o,H.No.3-6648,Himayathnagar,Hyderabad. ...PEIIONERUDEFENDANTNO. 10 AND

¶10

Dattatri Rao , S/o, Shyarn Rao, aged about 23^years, Occu.^Agriculture - Rio, Algole (Village) Zaheerabad^(tvlandal) Sangareddy^District.

¶11

Akshay, S/o, Anil Kumar, aged about 23^Years, Occu.^Student,Rio' Sriram Nagar Colony, Zaheerabad,^{SangareddyDistrict}

¶12

Harikishan Rao, S/o, Late^{Nageshwar Rao,aged about 27 Years'Occu-} Pvt Employee, Rto,¹ 1-4-12, Bharath^{Nagar Colony,Siddipet Town and '} District. I

¶13

Shivakishan Rao, Sio,^{Late NageshwarRao, aged about 25 Years, Occu'} Pvt Employee, No, 11-4-12, Bharath^{NagarColony, Siddipet Town and} ' District.

¶14

Shvam Rao, S/o, Venkat^{Rao,aged about 51 Years, Occu.Agriculture,} R/ci, nlgole (Village) Zaheerabad^{(Mandal) SangareddyDistrict.}

¶15

Veena, D/o, Shyam^{Rao, W/o, AnanthRao,aged about 27 Years, Occu-} Aoriculture, Rio, Kather^{(Village and tt/andal)presentlyResiding at Algole} (Village) Zaheerabad⁽ N/andal ) Sangareddy District.

¶16

Rekha, D/o, Shyam Rao, aged^{about 25 Years, Occu' Student,Fi/o, Algole} (Village) Zaheeiabad (Mandal) Sangareddy District.

¶17

Dilip Rao, S/o, Shyam^{Rao,aged about 21 Years, Occu. Student,} '{lgole (Vilia ge) Zaheerabad⁽ tt/a nd al) San^gareddy District.

¶18

Dinesh Rao, S/o, Shyam^{Rao,aged about19 Years, Occu. Student,} Algole (Village) Zaheerabad^{(l/andal) SangareddyDistrict.}

¶19

,'ii,'Jt8i\tu|:vJ8i!31%Y#1ft7:;ff,itl,1J,"':!?N8i'l;'lll"ehord'Rio'

¶20

4e vears'^{occu Agricurture' Rio'}

¶21

,, xam.l"nu;i'2;k3i?,Yffi*ff;,in"o

¶22

"E['.'Ji'l,tff .']iffi :r,zr]i;;Fiu'Hr,{?]fff,i*i{i$:}^j:[::" HYderabad.

¶23

1 3 Rajesh-^Kum:, ae?Y{i,/i;-}flSy8E,",'3,11#il;3331'i:.-," ve6rs,Occu.Business'H [lyderabad.

¶24

'^:i,?il,?J,::Ri;'3"|,3ffi^{f [?,fr :|"Tutsi,3ff iil::#'i8;;o&%oo'} District.

¶25

1 5. lnd ira, W/o,^NageshwarRao '^{Aged about 41. yea rs ' Occu Household'} Ft/o,H.No.1^{1 _4_1 2,Bharaitil'agxi"ionv,sio6ipet Town and Mandal.}

¶26

Uma@ Uttara,^{W/o, Anil Kumar' Aged about 41 years' OccuHousehold'} Fyo. H.No.1^{6_34, SriramNJgai,xriEriMtiugu) Zaheerabad (Mandal)} SangareddY^District.

¶27

17-t/aniula,W/o,KishanRao,Agedabout3Tyears'Occu'Household'R/o. H. No.9-^{1 0-r ss,suviliJ liivlt' 5iil'tt6.-Cot"nv.'Behind D C C Bank'} il;.;;li;;;,i,^{BiJii t"*t,'Xjitllur'i it't" (Re-spohdentNo 1 to 4 are} olaintiffs and^{5 to r z are'ieienJJntsin the mainsuit in the lower court and} not nec"stary^{partiesto this petition)}

¶28

i;ilil;iffi.ii,io,rz,ri,ia '*

¶29

...RESPONDENTS

¶30

IAN O:1^OF2021

¶31

Petition^{underSection151 CPC prayingthatin the circumstances stated} in the affidavit^{filedin supporto-t tn" p"iition,t-rr,e Hign court may be pleasedto} grant stay on all^{further p;;d'i"l;} O s,ftfo 11^{oi zooa on the file of Junior} 6iiii "rrarju^{c"urt,Zaheerabad, tVledakDistrict54}

¶32

Counsel^{for the Petitioner(s):SRl'G SURESH GOUD}

¶33

Counsel^{forthe Respondents No' 2 to 4: SRI' K'Harihar Babu}

¶34

Counsel^{for the Respondents No'12: SRI'Mohd lslamuddin Ansari}

¶35

counselfortheRespondentsNo.l,6tog,ll,l6&17:Noneappeared

¶36

The Gourt^{madethe following:ORDER}

¶37

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{T. AMARNATHGOUD}

¶38

cRP No.145 OF 2O21

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

1 This Civil Revision^{Petition,underArticle 227 of the} Constitution of India,^{is fiied by respondent No. i0 in I'A'No567} of 2O2O in O.S.No.54 of^{2OO8on the file of the Court of the} Junior Civil Judge,^{Zaheerabad, Medak District, aggrieved by} the order dated 29.^{l2.2O2O passedin the said I.A., permitting} the plaintiff Nos.2 to⁴ in^{the suit seekingto admit the original} agreement dated 19.6.2002^{in evidence.}

¶41

2 Tine material facts that^{lead to filing of the present Civil} Revision Petition are^{as follows:}

¶42

3 lnitially first respondent^{hereinfiled the suit for partition} and separate^{possessionin the year 2008 againstthe first} defendant and others^{claiming share inthe suit schedule} properties. Subsequently^{defendant Nos.15 to 17 who are 1egal} heirs of defendant^{Nos.12and 13 in the suit transposed as} plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 as^{per orders dated17} '12'2019ⁱⁿ I.A.No.1020 of 2019.

¶43

4 The lirst defendant^{was set ex parte on 14} '7^'2OOB' Subsequently after a^{long lapseof nearly ten years,the first} defendant filed^{I.A.No. l2lof 2Ol7 seeking to set aside the said} ex parte order, stating^{that he has obtained hand loan from the} defendant No.S and^{after repayment of the said hand loanthe} defendant No.8^{shallexecutea registeredsale deed in his favour}

¶44

-n-'respect of the plaint A schedule property^{and the said}

¶45

document dated 19.6.2002^{is very muchessential prove the case} and hence he intends^{to contest the suit. The said petitionwas} contested by the respondents.^{However, the trial court} dismissed the said Petition.

¶46

5 While so, the respondent^{Nos.2 to 4 herein who are} plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 (originally defendant^{Nos.15 to 17) filed} I.A.No.567 of 2O2O requesting^{the Courtto admit the document} dated 19.6.2002 in the evidence^{on their side. Their casewas} that defendant No.8 executed^{the saiddocument in favour of the} first defendant to the elfect that^{the defendant No.8 will execute} a registered sale deed in respect^{of agricultural land in Sy.No.3,} admeasuring Ac.S- 10 guntas situated at^{Algole village,} Zaheerabad Mandal in favour of first defendant^{after repayment} of the hand loan of Rs.4,26,000/-,^{v"hichthe first defendant had} taken from defendant No.S in the^{year 2OO2.Hence the said} document is necessary for their case and sought^{for its} admission in evidence.

¶47

6 The revision petitioner herein, being the^respondent No. 10 in I.A.No.567 of 2020, filed counter^contending that^the petition filed by the first defendant seeking to set aside the ex parte order and to admit the document sought to be^projected in evidence, was dismissed and therefore admitting the^said document as an exhibit does not arise at all. The^{petitionersare} claiming that the suit property is ancestral^{property, whichis} not correct and that the said property is the absolute^propertyin

¶48

the hands of the first defendant and hence the petitioners have

¶49

no right over the propert],.

¶50

7 Basing on the above pleadings and on hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, the trial Court aliowed the^petition observing that there are pleadings and an issue^{was also framed} lvith respect to the said document and hence it is relevant to the extent of facts alleged by the^plaintiffs in the suit.^{That the} contents of the document in^question show that the^first defendant registered schedule A property in favour of^the defendant No.8 and there is an agreement that the^first defendant will repay the hand loan to the defendant^{No.Sand on} such repayment, the defendant No.8 shall^{reconveythe schedule} A property in favour of the first defendant and^{therefore the} contents of the said document throw^light on Ex'A.4^{i.e. certified} copy ol the document in^{question, hence} the^{document in} question is relevant to the facts in issue. That^{the documentin} question is not compulsorily registerable document as^per Section 18 of the Registration Act^{as it} is^{sufficientlystamped} and hence admissible in evidence. The trial Court^further observed that the objection of the^{revision petitionerwith regard} to the mode of proof of the agreement^{dated19 ,6.2002can be} considered and the said docurnent can^{be marked inthe} evidence of the plaintiffs and^{such objection can be determined} at the final stage of the suit and the^{veracity ol the said} document can be decided.^The trial^{Court finally observedin the} impunged order that mere marking of the^{document does not} .il.bli"h the contents of it and the contents of^{the document}

¶51

have to be established^{independently, therefore,the agreement} datedlg.6.2002canbereceivedinevidenceoftheplaintiffs subject to the^{objection of the defendantswhichcan be adjudged} at the final stage^{of the suit.}

¶52

8 As stated supra,^{aggrieved by the said orderdated} 2g.12.2O2O, the^{defendant No.10in the suit filed the present} Civil Revision Petition^{contendingthat the findingsof the trial} Court in the impugned^{order are contrary to the findingsgiven} by the very same^{Courtin I.A.No.121of 2017, whichwas filed by} the {irst defendant^{and hence the impugned order has to be set} aside.

¶53

9 The respondent No.4 /^{plaintiffNo.4 filed counterdenying} the averments made in^{the revision petition contendingthat the} document sought to^{be admitted,which was filed by the first} defendant, is already on^{recordand that mere marking of the} said document does^{not meanthat the contentsare established} and the mode of^proof of^{the document is a different aspect} which can be adjudged^{at the fina1 stage of the suit.}

¶54

10 Heard both sides

¶55

11 Now the^point for^{considerationis whetherthe trial Court} is^justified in allowing^{the petition filed by the plaintiffs to admit} the document in^{question in evidence?}

¶56

12 Point: Admittedly the^{first defendantin the suit was set ex}

¶57

parte on 1,4.7.2OO8. Seeking to set^{aside the said ex parte order,} he fi1ed a petition in 2017^{i.e. I.A.No. l2lof 2Ol7 nearlyafter 9}

¶58

¶59

years. His contention in the^{said petitionwas that he entered} into an agreement dated^{19.6.2002 with the defendantNo'8 in} the suit in respect of^{plaint A schedulepropertiesand that} document is^{necessaryfor adjudication of the suit'} That petition I.A.No. 121 of 2Ol7^{to set aside the said orderwas} dismiSsed. In that^{petition the trial Courtobserved that the} document dated^{19.6.2O02, whichis an agreementof sale is a} time barred document^{and that the signatureof the defendant} No.B on the document^{i.e. agreement of sale diflers from his} signature on^{his chief examinationaffidavit as D'W'2' Thesaid} order passed in^{I.A.No.121of 2Ol7 was also upheldin Civil} Revision Petition^{No.2863 of201B by the High Court'} Therefore, the trial^{Court, having disallowed the first defendant} from contesting the^{suit, ought not to havealiowed the present} I.A. No.567 of^{2O2O because the observations in both the} petitions are contradictory^{to each other'}

¶60

13 If the first^{defendantwas aware of the execution of the} document dated^{19.6.2002 with the eighth defendant he would} have filed the^{petition for setting aside the ex parte order' Filing} of the petition^{by the first defendantto admit the document into} evidence and after^{first defendantfailing in that attempt and} now the plaintiffs^{2 to 4 filing the present petition I A'No'567 of} 2O2O being^{aware ol the observationsof the trial Court in} I.A.No.121 of 2077^{would throw some cloud on the genuineness} of the pleadings^{of the piaintiffs since the said documentwas} not admitted as^{part of the Courtrecordand not receivedby the} Court. Therefore,^{admitting the said document does not arise'}

¶61

Moreover, the suit is of the^{year 2008 and the plaintiffs liled the} I.A.No.567 ol 2O2O after long lapse of^{12 years. Probably, they} might have knowledge of the said^{document. So having slept} over for such a long time, now the^{plaintiffs cannot come} forward to admit the document in^{questioninto evidence which} has already been rejected by the trial Court^{itself in I.A'No.121} of 2Ol7 as a time barred document. The^{findingsgiven by the} trial Court in the order^peissed in I.A.No.l2l of^2017would clearly disclose that the document in^question has^{no relevance} to the case on hand. Therefore, once again filing a^{petition for} the same relief by some other partY lhat too having^the knowledge of the findings given in the earlier^{petition, is} unwarranted. Hence this Court is of the view that the I.A.No.567 of 2O2O is filed only to drag on the suit proceedings but nothing else.

¶62

14 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable and is liable to be dismissed.

¶63

15 In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 29.12.2O2O passed in I.A.No.567 of 2O2O in O.S.No.54 of 20O8 is hereby set aside and the said I.A. stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.

¶64

Sd/-K.ONESIIM ASSISTANT^RGIS R //TRUE^COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶65

¶66

The Junior^{Civil JudgeZaheerabad'Medak District'}

¶67

One CC^{to SRl. G SURESH GOUD Advocate[OPUC]}

¶68

One CC^{to SRl.K.HariharBabu} 'Advocate^[OPUC]

¶69

One CC to^{SRl. Mohd lslamuddin Ansari'Advocate[OPUC]}

¶70

Two CD^CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810212021

ORDER

CRP.No.145 of 2021

ALLOWING THE CRP.

1 ii TA
(
J
I C
Lr 03 t'4ln 2021
a-o.
*
-.qll

¶77

b
),"?<br>

Smt. Gayatri G.Naidu v. Dattatri Rao and 16 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gayatri G.Naidu v. Dattatri Rao and 16 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anantha Naveen Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

M Sekhar Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Kotharu Pandu Ranga Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Mumtaz Hussain Vs The State of Telangana

P. Janardhan Reddy and 3 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others

K.Devender, Vs Chief Executive Officer