Dismissed

Sri.B.Krishna v. Sri.Ranga Sudhakar

Telangana HC23 Jan 2024CRP/747/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order allowing a party to lead secondary evidence (photostat layout plan and certified sale deeds) under Sections 63(1) and 65(a) of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court held that certified copies are public documents and admission of such evidence did not cause prejudice, as the opponent could still dispute proof at a later stage.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed confirming the trial court's order allowing secondary evidence. No costs.

Sri.B.Krishna Vs Sri.Ranga Sudhakar — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

!N THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYOERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY^{THIRDDAY OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY FOUR}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICE K. SUJANA}

¶5

ctvtL REVtsION PETITION^{NO:747 0F 2023}

¶6

Petition under Article 227 ol^{lhe Constitutionof lndia, aggrieved by the} order dated 02-02-2023^{made in 1.A.No.8700t 2022 in o.s.No.1778 0f 2013 0n} the file of the court of the^{Learned ll Additionalsenior civil Judge, Ranga Reddy} District at L.B.Nagar.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri.B.Krishna, S/o.Late^{B.Prabhakar,agedabout 33 years,} Qcq^Bq9inqs9, nio.Ft.ruo.+-25, Narkoda^{Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District}

¶9

...Petitioner/RespondenUDefendant

¶10

ANO

¶11

Sri.Ranoa Sudhakar, S/o.Late^{R.Veeraiah,Aged about58 years, Occ:} Businesi, R/o.H.No.15-3-39/A,^{Afzalgunj,Hyderabad}

¶12

... RespondenUPetitioner/Plai^ntiff

¶13

lA NO: t OF 2023

¶14

Petition under seclion 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High court maybe pleasedTo} suspend the operation and^{effect of the order inI .A. No.870ol 2022 in} o.s.No.1778 0t 2013,^{daled o2-02-2023,on the file of the ll Additional senior} Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy^{District., pending disposal of the C R'P'}

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri'^{N. KRISHNA SUMANTH}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent:^{Sri. N. AMARNATH}

¶17

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SMT.^{JUSTICE K. SUJANA} CruIL REVISION PETITION^{No.747of 2023}

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Aggrieved by the order^{datedO2.O2.2023in I.A No'870} ol 2022 in O.S.No. 1778^{of 2013 passed by the Court of} learned II Additiona-l^{Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District} at L.B Nagar,^{the presentCivil RevisionPetition is filed.}

¶21

I.A.No.870 of 2022^{was filed under Section 63 (1) and 65} (a) of the Indian Evidence^Act, to^{permit the petitioner to lead} secondary evidence in^{respect of Photostat copy of layout and} four certified copies of^{registeredsale deeds.Petitioner in the} above said I.A is the^{plaintiff in O.S.No. 1778of 2013, s'hich} *.r,as filed for declaration and recovery of^{possessionof plot} No.1, admeasuring^{25O squareyards, equivalent to 2O920} square mete rs, in Survey^{No.344,347, 34A (part) &4 19} S1'ndicate Meadows,^{Narkhoda Village, ShamshabadMandal,} Ranga Reddy District and to^{declare plaintiff as the absolute} ou,ner of the suit schedule^{propertyand there is a serious} dispute rvith regard to the identity^{of his property rn the suit} and originall,y he purchased the^{property from avendor} knou,n as Syndicate Meadows and there^are number ol^plots sold in thc said venture which are Plot No.l tou'ards

¶22

¶23

SKS,J C R P.No^{lJt of2023}

¶24

northern-side of his^{plot and there are other plots with Nos'2} to 10 which are existing^{adjoining to each other and his} vendors obtained the^{approved lay-out plan in the name of} Syndicate meadows^{vide permitNo.GP/T/2OOl-2OO2through} DTO/RR.DIST/Chaflan^{No.000653,dated 03'07'2001'The} original layout^{plan is in custodyof his vendoras such' the} original layout^{is not available and when he approached Gram} Panchayat offrcials,^{they refusedto issue the Certifiedcopies'} Therefore, this^{petitionis frled to permit the petitioner to lead} secondar5r evidence.

¶25

On the other^{hand, respondentfiled counter stating that} the petition is^{devoid of merits. The respondent deniedabout} the petitioner^{purchasingthe suit schedule plot from a} venture known as^{SyndicateMeadovvs and also denied the} possession of the^{petitioner and also the adjacentplot Nos'2'} 3 and 4. It is^{also stated that the Photostat copiesare not at} all concerned and^{it isneitheran electronic record nor} downloaded from^{any government olficial record' Therefore'} prayed the Court to^{dismiss the petition'}

¶26

On hearing^{on both sides,the trial Cotrrt allor'r'ed the} petition by permitting^{thepetitio ner tolead secondary} evidence in^{respect of Photostat copl' of the lavout rt'ith permit}

¶27

¶28

SKSJ C. R. P.No.747 of 2023

¶29

No.GP/T/2O0 r-2OO2 through DTO/RR.DIST/Challan No.000653, dated 03.07.2001 and the certified copies of sale deeds uide Document No.13OO/201 1 dated 12.O5.2otl, Document No.1299 l2Oll, dated 12.O5.2OlI, Document No.5499/20O6 dated 18.04.2006

¶30

Heard Sri N. Krishna Sumanth, learned counsel for the petitioner as u'ell as Sri N. Amarnath, learned counsel for the respondent

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner liled suit lor declaration of title and the most important feature is to identify the suit schedule property basing on the approved layout and the respondent claiming his plot in Sr'.Nos.344,347,3a8 (part) and 419 situated at Syndicate Meadorvs, Narkhoda Village and Grampanchayat, Samshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. But contrary to the same, he filed Xerox copy of the layout pertaining to 51,Nos.344, 347, 348, 412, 419, 416 & 4O2, 413,⁴¹⁴ situated at Narkhoda Village and Gram^Panchayat, Samshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Thus, there cannot be arl-' Xerox copy of the layout filed by the pe titioner/ plai rr tilf which does not fall under the said survey numbers. Therefore, Court below ought not to have allou' the

¶32

¶33

SK^IJ C R.P No^{71 r' of 202J}

¶34

Secondary Evidence^{Petition. Sincethe date of fiiing of the} suit, he does^{not chooseto file any layout but at the fag end} stage, he filed^{the Xerox copy of the layout which on the face} of it is not^{there in respect of the allegedsurvey numbers'} Therefore,^{prayedthe Court to allow the petition'}

¶35

On the other hand,^{leamed counsel for the respondent} would submit that^{there is no illegalityin the order of the trial} Court and the^{tria-l Court rightly allowed the petition'} Therefore,^{prayed the Court to dismissthe present petition'}

¶36

As seen from the^{record, it discloses that the p€titioner} filed I.A.No.87O^{of 2022underSections63 (1) and 65 (a) of} the tndian^{Evidence Act, to permit him to leadsecondary} evidence. The^{objectionof the respondentis that petitioner} filed an application^{at abelated stage and the Survey} Numbers were also^{different. It is an admittedfact that all} the sa.le deeds are^{publicdocumentsas there are certified} copies under Section^{64e atd the same cart be receivedas} secondaqr evidence.^{Further, as regardsto the Photostat} copies of the layout, as original^{layout, i'e', venture, is with} vendor he filed the copy.^{The contents of the la)'-out} disclosed the permit^{No.GP/T/20O l-2OO2through} DTO/RR.DIST/Challan^{No.000653,datedO3 07'20O1and}

-4

)

SKS,J r) R.P No.747 of 2023

¶41

also the Survey Nos.344, 347,348 (part) and 419 along with other survey numbers. Since, the layout is the Photostat copies of the original layout, allowing the secondarl' evidence under Section 65A of the Indian Evidence Act will not cause any prejudice to the revision petitioner. Apart from that mere Iiling the document does not amount to the proof. Petitioner can agitate his grounds at relevant stage to disprove the sarne. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and there are no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed

¶42

Accordinglv, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 02.02.2023 in I.A.No.87O of 2022 in O.S.No. 1778 ol' 2013 passed by the Court of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar- There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

¶44

shall stand closed

¶45

SD'-P.PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'/

SECTI OFFICER

To,

The ll Additional Senior^{Civil Judge,Ranga Reddy District at L'B Nagar}

¶50

One CC to Sri.^{N. KRISHNA SUMANTH' Advocate} [OPUC]

¶51

One CC to Sri.^{N. AMARNATH, Advocate} IOPUC]

¶52

Two CD CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2310112024

ORDER

4/€
( ),'
-) t)
oC
2 2 ilAR Zo24
a
* 3+
t
P,ATCtI gO

¶58

CRP.No.747 ot 2023

¶59

DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶60

6tdea W 6,tr

Sri.B.Krishna v. Sri.Ranga Sudhakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.B.Krishna v. Sri.Ranga Sudhakar

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

Antharam Rukkamma (Died) and another Vs Antharam Narsimlu and 26 others

M. Sudhakar Rao Vs v. Rajeshwar Reddy

Tamanampudi Ashok Kumar Reddy, Y Vs Dr. Bandaluppi Rajendra Srinivas

Kankanala Laxmi Vs Koudagani Purnachander and 12 others

Syed Ansar Ahmed and 3 others Vs Smt. Shaheen Siddiqa and 7 others

Smt. Pocharam Ailamma Vs P. Sai Kumar Yadav