Allowed

Amara Srinivasa Rao v. Kodela Chinna Rajaiah

Telangana HC18 Apr 2023CRP/2513/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging a trial court order that set aside the admissibility of documents including a sale agreement. The court directed the lower court to remedy the procedural error and allow the documents to be produced for hallmarking subject to proof and relevance.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 13-09-2022 must be set aside and the petitioners permitted to mark documents i.e., the agreement of sale and the three receipts, subject to proof and relevancy.

Amara Srinivasa Rao Vs Kodela Chinna Rajaiah — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ ]

¶2

i I I ! I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETIT|ON NO: 2513 OF 2022

¶8

Petition under Article 227 ot lhe Constitution of lndia against the order dated 13-09-2022 passed in l.A. No. 601 of 2021 in OS No.77 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Hanamkonda

¶9

Between:

¶10

Amara Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Amara Rama Rao, Aged 73 years, Occ.Doctor, R/o. 76, Gramercy Dr. Piscataway, NJ-06054,U.S.A., Rep. by his GPA holder Amara Kishan Rao, S/o. Late A.Rama Rao, Aged 62 years, Occ. Retd. Engineer, (lnigation Department) Rfo. H.No. 6-1-90/29, Bapuji Nagar, Jamisthanpur, Secunderabad, Presently residing at Quarter No.40, Doctors Colony, Phase-ll, Balajinagar, Deshsaipet, Warangal.

¶11

Amara Madan Mohan Rao, Sio. Late Amara Rama Rao, Aged 71 years, Occ. Engineer, R/o. 1733,Albanyst Sehenectady Ny.1230 Cy, U.S.A., Rep. by his GPA Holder, Amara Kishan Rao S/o. Late A. Rama Rao, Aged 62 years, Occ:Retd. Engineer, (lnigation Department) R/o. H.No. 6-1-90/29, Bapuji Nagar, Jamisthanpur, Secunderabad, Presently residing at euarter No.40, Doctors Colony, Phase-ll, Balajinagar, Deshsaipet, Warangal.

¶12

Amara Kishan Rao, S/o. Late A.Rama Rao, Aged 68 years, Occ.Retd. Engineer, (lnigation Department) Fi/o. H.No. 6-1-90129, Bapuji Nagar, Jamisthanpur, Secunderabad, Presently residing at. Quarter No.40, Doc[ors Colony, Phase-ll, Balajinagar, Deshsaipet, Warangal.

¶13

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶14

AND

¶15

'l . Kodela Chinna Rajaiah, Wo. Late Mankaiah, Aged 59 years, Occ.Agriculture, Ryor H.No. 2-10-82, Waddepally, Hanamkonda, Warangal City and District.

¶16

1. Kodela Rajeshwari, Wo. Late Pedda Rajaiah, Aged 56 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. H.No. 2-10-78, Waddepally, Hanamkonda, Warangal City and District.

¶17

Kodela Aniamma, Wio. Late Lachaiah alias Lachanna, Aged 55 years, Occ.household, Ri/o. H.No. 2-10-140, Waddepally, Hanamkonda, Warangal City and District.

¶18

Kodela Raju, S/o. Late Lachaiah alias Lachanna, Aged 38 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. H.No. 2-10-140, Waddepally, Hanamkonda, Warangal City and District.

¶19

M/s. K.P.Reddy Gardens, A Registered Firm (No.151/2007), Dt.181712007, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Sn. Kolanu Papi Reddy, S/o.Late Krishna Reddy, Aged.70 years, Occ.Business, Rl/o. H.No. 2-6-1393, Srinivas Colony, Hanamkonda' warangal'

¶20

...RES,.NDENTS/'ET'r.NERS

¶21

lA NO:^'l OF 2022

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^may be^{pleased to} stay all further^proceedings in OS No.⁷⁷ of^{2015 on the file of the Chairman,} Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-l^{Additional District Judge,Hanamkonda,} pending disposal of the CRP

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI^{J. VENKATESWARA REDDY}

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1^{to 4: SRI VIJAY KUMAR PANUGANTI}

¶25

Counsel forthe Respondent No.5:^{M/s'H. VENUGOPAL}

¶26

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.25 13 of 2O22 OR ER:

¶28

Challenging the order dated 13.09.2022, passed in LA.No.601 of 2027 in O.S.No.77 of 2015 by the learned Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda, allowing the objections raised by the respondent Nos.1 to 4/defendant Nos.2 to 5 for marking of the agreement of sale dated 06.03.19gg while dismissing the I.A. in respect of the prayer for marking of three receipts, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for both sides.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs has stated that the trial Court without taking into consideration the fact that the documents, which are sought to be marked, are crucial documents for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in O.S.No.77 of 2075, has erroneously allowed I.A.No.601 of 2O2L filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein, who are arrayed as defendant Nos.2 to 5, upholding the

¶31

¶32

objections for marklng of the agreement of sale dated 06.03.1988 and dismissed the LA. with respect to the objections for marking the three receipts and other documents. That the agreement of sale filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs is very crucial for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in the suit. That the agreement of sale and the receipts are interrelated, but, the trial Court has allowed I.A. No.601 of 2O2L filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4/ defendant Nos.2 to 5 objecting for marking of the agreement oF sale and dismissed the said I.A. overruling the objections for marking the three receipts and other documents. Learned

¶33

counsel has also stated that the documents.sought to be marked are always subject to proof and relevancy, as such, the trial Court has erred in allowing the present LA.No.601 of 2O2L bV the order dated 13.09.2022, which is impugned in the present revision. The learned counsel has stated that the objections for marking the documents can be decided at the time of hearing the main case but not at the threshold. Therefore, the learned counsel has prayed this Court to set aside the order under revision dated 13.09.2022 and altow the present Civil Revision petition.

¶34

i i i I

¶35

¶36

Per Contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 has stated that any objections to the marking of the documents have to be taken at the time of marking but once the documents are marked, the respondent Nos.1 to 4/defendant Nos.2 to 5 cannot object for the same. Therefore, the respondents have filed I.A.No.60t of 2O2L for hearing on the objections for marking of the documents relied by the petitioners. Learned counsel has stated that the documents have no nexus with the suit filed by the petitioners as the same is filed for bare injunction. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly allowed the I.A.No.60 I of 2O2l filed for hearing on the obleciions raised by the petitioners in respect of marking of three receipts and other documents.

¶37

5, Perused the material on record.

¶38

Admittedly, in the present case, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have filed objections for marking of the agreement of sale along with three receipts and other documents, but, the trial Court has allowed I.A.No.601 of 2O2L to the extent of hearing the objections taken by the respondents for marking of the agreement of sale only but dismissed the LA. insofar

¶39

¶40

¶41

as the three receipts and other documents are concerned. It is the specific case of the petitioners/plaintiffs that the receipts are part and parcel of the agreement of sale, as such, no purpose would be served even if the said receipts are marked.

¶42

It is the well established principle of law that by mere marking of the documents it cannot be construed that the contents of the said documents have been proved. Any document sought to be marked will always be subject to proof and relevancy and subject to the objections that may be taken by the other side. The trial Court instead of deciding the objections taken by the respondents, has decided the issue even before the marking of the docuntents.

¶43

B. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the opinion that the order under revision dated 13.09.2022 passed by the trial Court has to be necessarily set aside and the petitioners are permitted to mark the documents i.e., the agreement of sale and the three receipts. However, any marking done shall be subject to proof and relevancy and the objections taken by the respondents at the time of marking will be recorded by

¶44

¶45

the trial Court and the same shall be decided at the time of

¶46

final hearing of the suit.

¶47

With the above observations, the Civil Revision petition is disposed of.

¶48

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

¶49

closed.

¶50

Sd/-P.CH.NAGABHUSHAM BA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

=D SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate^{Tribunal-cum-l Additional District} Judge, Hanamkonda

¶55

One CC to Sri J. Venkateswara^{Reddy,Advocate} IOPUCI

¶56

One CC to Sri Vijay Kumar Panuganti, Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

One CC to Mis. H. Venugopal, Advocate [OPUC]

¶58

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

AAR,J

DATE D: 1 810412023

ORDER

, L STji r{: .,
1t
]...'
2 [ [?\ Nn
i)
:',1-:,.

¶66

CRP.No.2513 of 2022

¶67

DISPOSING OF THE c.R.P.

¶68

(od,4 a3

Amara Srinivasa Rao v. Kodela Chinna Rajaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amara Srinivasa Rao v. Kodela Chinna Rajaiah

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

P.Srinivas, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Govindu Prameela Vs M.Suguna

M.Bal Raj, Hanumakonda,Jangaon,Warangal District Vs Apsrtc., v.C.and M.D., Musheerabad,Hyderabad and 2 Others

The Karimnagar Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd., Vs v.Srinivas Reddy

V.Krishna Mohan. Hyderabad Vs the Cheif Executive Officer., Vasavi Coop.Urban Bank Ltd.Hyd

Smt. Nafasath Ameena, W/o. Syed Siraj Hyder, Vs The Government of A.P.