Allowed

Varala Bhajanna v. Varala Narsaiah

Telangana HC4 Mar 2025CRP/4095/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Full Bench of the Telangana High Court allowed a civil revision petition under Article 226 directing the trial court to receive a belated pattedar passbook submitted by the defendant, as no mala fide intent was found and it aided holistic determination of the title suit.

What did the court decide?

The trial court is directed to receive the pattedar passbook on record, subject to proof and relevancy; the impugned order is set aside.

Varala Bhajanna Vs Varala Narsaiah — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132171

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA}

¶3

TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF^TMARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITIO N^{NO: 4095 OF 2024}

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of^{the Constitutionof lndia, aggrievedby the} order dated 26t11t2O24^{passed in lA No 42412O24 in os No. 91/20',l4 on the file} of the Court of the Principal Senior^{Civil Judge' Nizamabad.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Varala Bhajanna, S/o Sayanna,^{aged.68.years,Occ. Agriculture, R/o H No 4-} 6, (Vill and it/;, Dicnpally^{Dist. Nizamabad- TS}

¶10

,.. Petitioner/Defendant^{No. 2}

¶11

AND

¶12

-l . Varala Narsaiah, S/o Varala Gangaram, aged about 65 years' Occ' Agriculture, R/o Nyalkal^{Road, Nizamabad- TS}

¶13

V arala Bakkanna, S/o^{Buchanna, No. 2 to 6 all R/o (Vill and M) Dichpally, Dist} N izamabad

¶14

Varala Eranna, S/o^{Sayanna,No. 2 to 6 all R/o (Vill and M) Dichpally,Dist} N izamabad

¶15

4.VaralaNarsaiah,S/oSayanna,No.2to6allR/o(VillandM)Dichpally,Dist Nizamabad

¶16

Koppula Narayana,^{S/o Poshetty,No 2 to 6 all R/o (Vilt and M) Dichpally,Dist} N izamabad

¶17

6.ChakaliSailu,S/oPedaSailuNo.2to6allR/o(VillandM)Dichpally',Dist Nizamab4d^(No 2 to^{6 are not} """::::;::::ts/Derendants

¶18

No.1, 3 to^6.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High courtmay be pleasedto} Ji"p.n"" with in^{fiting Cb of decree copy dated 26111t2O24passed in lA 4241} 2O24inOSglt2O24byPrincipalSeniorCivilJudge,Nizamabad,pendingCRP'

¶21

lA NO:2 OF 2024

¶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 9112014 on the file of the orders dt26111l2O24 passed in lA 424/2024 by Principal Senior Judge, Nizamabad, pending disposal Of CRP.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. K. M Mahender Reddy

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared.

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

l t I I

1 rill ,i l

{ ,i ri I .i ]l 1

,,:.

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N' TUKARAMJT} CTvIL^{REVISIONPETITION No.4095of 2o.24}

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Civil^{Revision Petition hasbeen frled} challenging^{the proprietyof the order dated 26'lL'2O24} passed in^{I.A. No 424 ol 2024 in O'S' No'91of 2Ol4on} the file^{of the iearned Principal Senior Civil Judge'} Nizamabad

¶35

2 Heard^{Mr. K.M.Mahender Reddy' learnedcounsel} for the^{revision petitioner' In spite of due notice' the} respondents^{did not chooseto appear'}

¶36

Briefly^{stated, the relevant facts are that the} revision^{petitioner/defendant No'2 has hled the petition} under^{Order VII Rule 14 of C'P'C' with a prayer to} receive^{the documenthled along with the petition i'e''} pattedar^{passbookbearing No'X-117286 issuedby the} Tahsildar,^{Dichpally Mandal'NizamabadDistrict'} It has^{been pleadedthat the document was recently} traced^{out during the searchand the said document is} relevant^{for proper adjudicationof the issues in the srift-}

¶37

'- rt ..,_;' .t -,^- --t, .-..::r' ..'...-

¶38

¶39

and receiving will not prejudice the interests of the other side. Hence, prayed for receiving of the document.

¶40

Respondent No.1/plaintiff in the counter opposed petition and contested that no explanation is offered as to how the document is relevant, that apart, the particulars are at variance with the description mentioned in the written statement. Therefore, in the absence of the pleadings, the document canrot be proved, hence prayed for dismissal.

¶41

5' 'lhe trial court, by considering the submissions and by noting that the reason offered for the delay in filing the document is not convincing and the pattedar passbook document intended to be filed is at variance to the pass book and patta numbers mentioned in the written statement. Further, no proper reason was set out for non-filing of the document along with the written statement, dismissed the petition.

¶42

Learned counsel for the revrslon petitioner submits .^{that in the} written statement the facts of purchasing the

.t:nr'

i Ii l

t; I :l rT

i t I i t

relevant^{propertyunder the registered sale deed by his} father and^{issuanceof pattedarpassbook by the Revenue} Authority^{in the name of his father has been pleaded'} however^{after the demise of his father' his name was} mutated and^{the pattedar passbook/intendeddocument} was issued.^{As such, it is relevant documentand} supported^{by relevantpleading' However'the trial Court} failed to appreciate^{these aspectsand merely noted that} the serial^{numbersof the document are not analogous} with the^{pleadings in the written statement'He further} asserts that^{the explanation offered for non-frling of the} document^{is genuine and merelyon the denial' the trial} Court erroneously^{held that the explanationofferedto} receive the^{document is not convincing' Thus' prayed for} intervention^{and to extend an opportunityto placethe} document^{on record'}

¶49

7 I have^{perusedthe material on record}

¶50

In^these pleas the^{asPect thatarises for} determination is, whether^{theimPugnedorder'- G} . sustainable in the^{facts of the law?}

¶51

¶52

9 As per the revision petitioner/ defendant No.2 . the document intended to be placed on record is pattedar passbook issued by the Tahsildar in his favour covering the suit schedule property. The suit liled by the respondent No.1/plaintiff is for declaration of title and recovery of possession. He admits that in the written statement issuance of a pattedar passbook in the name of his lather has been pleaded, however, after the demise of his father, pattedar passbook was issued in his favour and the same has not been stated as it was issued after institution of the suit. The date of issuance of the document i.e., pattedar passbook on 06.11.2014, is supporting this fact.

¶53

Having regard to the pleading that the document could not be hled along with the written statement and the same was misplaced, though it appears to be a routine plea, as rightly pointed out except for the denial no other material has been made out in record bv the .^respondent No. 1/plaintiff to consider that the

¶54

i !i;r--:117 l,t{-.-,-z'

I I

Ii] I

explanation offered by^{the revision petitioner/defendant} No.2 was witl^ mala fide^intention.

¶60

1 1 . Be that as it^{may, as per therevision} petitioner/defendant^{No.2 and by the observation in the} impugned order, it^{is evidentthat the suit is at the stage} of defendants' evidence^{and receiving documents on to} record cannot be^{equated with admission ofthe} document into evidence^{and the receipt of document} would be subject to^{relevancyand proof of the document'} Considering this^{aspect and as no advisedmove or mala} fide^{intention is found in belated submission of the} document and the^{suit is beforeprimary forum and} extending an opportunity to the revision petitioner/defendant^{No'2 to place their entire case so as} to holistically determine^{all issues betweenthe parties} the court below^{ought to have positively exercised its} jurisdiction.

¶61

Having regard to these^{aspects, this Court deemsit} fit to intervene in the interest^{of justice. Accordingly,the}

t i I I I I I

trial Court is directed to receive the document on to fiie, subject to proof and relevancy.

¶66

1 3. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 26.71.2024 passed in I.A. No.424 of 2024 in O.S. No.91 of 2OI4, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. No order as to costs.

¶67

As a sequel, misceilaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.

¶68

SD/. T. JAYASREE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

sEc N OFFICER

To,

The Principal Senior Judge, Nizamabad

¶74

2 One CC to Sri. K M frrlahender Reddy Advocate [OpUC]

3 Two CD Copies

MKN/gh

Qt-

i I II I i l i ! I l

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410312025

1 ti: i ;,., /A
( o (( c
<br>r.I \r
-) 15 SEP 2025
1, //
, Qc ,''''tt-);:"

¶82

ORDER

¶83

CRP.No.4095 of 2024

¶84

CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS ALLOWED. (u

¶85

ls^su)

Varala Bhajanna v. Varala Narsaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varala Bhajanna v. Varala Narsaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Konda Satyanarayna Vs M.Radhika

Praveen Gujja Vs M/S Shriram city union finance limited

Atchuta Jagadish Chandra Vs Karamsetti Venkata Varaprasada Rao

V. Dasarathy and Another Vs Sai Samrat Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Mohd Sadiq Vs Smt.K. Annapurna

Jameel Ali Vs Miryal Gandhi