Telangana High Court
Nomula Manemma , Rajamani vs Macha Hanumakka , Mallayala Hanumamma on 2 April, 2025
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.274 and 276 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:
Both these Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the common order dated 21.10.2021 in I.A. Nos.773 and 772 of 2019, respectively, in O.S. No.43 of 2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Huzurabad.
2. I.A. Nos.773 and 772 of 2019 were disposed of by a common order by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad. O.S No.43 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking the relief of partition of suit schedule properties and to pass a preliminary decree by allotting half share to her with metes and bounds. The plaintiff contended that she was the adopted daughter of defendant No.1 and her husband. She was adopted at the age of 3 years. She was none other than the daughter of the own sister of defendant No.1. Her marriage was performed by the defendant No.1 and her husband. Her adopted father died on 28.06.2012. She performed the cremation and pedda karma. Every year annual rituals were also performed by her. Subsequently, the defendant No.1 developed dislike towards her under the influence of defendant Nos.2 to 5. The defendant No.2 was the younger sister of defendant No.1, defendant No.3 was the husband of 2 Dr.GRR, J CRP Nos.274&276 of 2022 defendant No.2 and defendant Nos.3 and 4 were the daughter and son of defendant Nos.2 and 3.
3. The defendant No.1 filed written statement denying that the plaintiff was her adopted daughter. The documents filed by the plaintiff i.e. lagnapatrika and wedding card were created and invented for the purpose of the case. No documentary evidence was placed by the plaintiff to prove her alleged adoption. The plaintiff, taking advantage of the prior relationship being daughter of sister of defendant No.1, was creating and inventing the documents and filed the suit with a cooked up story.
4. During the course of trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1. When the case was posted for further evidence of the plaintiff, at that stage, the plaintiff filed I.A. Nos.772 and 773 of 2019 to reopen her evidence vide I.A. No.772 of 2019 and to receive the registered Will Deed document No.79 of 2012 dated 05.10.2012 in terms of Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC vide I.A. No.773 of 2019. The plaintiff filed affidavits in support of the said applications stating that the defendant No.1 executed a registered Will deed vide document No.79 of 2012 dated 05.10.2012 for the postal deposits in favour of her and her father. The said document was a public document and it was relevant to prove her claim, hence sought permission to reopen her evidence and to mark the said document as exhibit in her favour. 3
Dr.GRR, J CRP Nos.274&276 of 2022
5. The respondents-defendants filed counter contending that the said document was a created one. The plaintiff filed the same as an afterthought. The respondent No.1 never signed on the said alleged Will Deed. The petitions were filed only to protract the proceedings and prayed to dismiss the same.
6. The trial court, on considering the contentions of both the learned counsel, observed that the alleged Will Deed was dated 05.10.2012, which three years prior to the date of filing of the suit. The document was well within the care and custody of the petitioner-plaintiff. However, there was no explanation from her as to why she failed to file the said document along with the plaint. The Will Deed was executed in respect of certain amounts deposited in the post office, but not pertaining to items No.1, 2 and 3 of the suit schedule property. There were no pleadings with regard to the Will deed either in the plaint or in the chief examination affidavit of the plaintiff and by placing reliance upon the judgment of the High Court of A.P. in Nyayapathi srinivasa Raghavan v. Adinarayana Sastry (2012 (2) ALT 65), dismissed both the applications.
7. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said applications, the plaintiff preferred these revisions.
4
Dr.GRR, J CRP Nos.274&276 of 2022
8. Heard Sri Nalla Mukunda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and Sri Chalakani Venkata Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court without considering the facts and law had erroneously dismissed both the interim applications. The defendant No.1-mother executed a registered Will Deed for the postal deposits in favour of the petitioner and her father. The said registered document was a public document which was relevant and important to prove her claim. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments held that where the application was found to be bonafide and relevant and the additional evidence oral or documentary would assist the court to clarify the issues and would assist in rendering justice and non- production of it earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, ought to have allowed the applications and prayed to set aside the common order 21.10.2021 passed in I.A. Nos.772 and 773 of 2019 in O.S. No.43 of 2015 by the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that there was a delay of four years in filing the document. No proper explanation was given by the petitioner-plaintiff for filing the same with an inordinate delay. There were no pleadings in the plaint. Evidence 5 Dr.GRR, J CRP Nos.274&276 of 2022 could not be let without pleadings. Any amount of evidence without pleadings could not be considered and prayed to dismiss the CRPs.
11. Perused the record.
12. The revision petitioner-plaintiff failed to state about the registered will deed either in her plaint or in her evidence affidavit and no factual foundation was laid down by her in filing the document with a delay of 3 to 4 years though the document was in her care and custody and no satisfactory explanation was given by her for the said delay. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bachhaj Nahar v. Neelima Mandal and others 1, held that:
"9. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. Its object is also to ensure that each side is fully alive to the questions that are likely to be raised or considered so that they may have an opportunity of placing the relevant evidence appropriate to the issues before the court for its consideration. This Court has repeatedly held that the pleadings are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met, to enable courts to determine what is really at issue between the parties, and to prevent any deviation from the course which litigation on particular causes must take.
10. The object of issues is to identify from the pleadings the questions or points required to be decided by the courts so as to enable parties to let in evidence thereon. When the facts necessary to make out a particular claim, or to seek a particular relief, are not found in the plaint, the court cannot focus the attention of the parties, or its own attention on that claim or relief, by framing an appropriate issue. As a result the defendant does not get an opportunity to place the facts and contentions necessary to repudiate or challenge such a claim or relief. Therefore, the court cannot, on finding that the plaintiff has not made out the case put forth by him, grant some other relief. The question before a court is not whether there is some material on the basis of which some relief can be granted. The question is whether any relief 1 AIR 2019 SC 1105 6 Dr.GRR, J CRP Nos.274&276 of 2022 can be granted, when the defendant had no opportunity to show that the relief proposed by the court could not be granted. When there is no prayer for a particular relief and no pleadings to support such a relief, and when defendant has no opportunity to resist or oppose such a relief, if the court considers and grants such a relief, it will lead to miscarriage of justice. Thus it is said that no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief."
13. Thus, the revision petitioner-plaintiff cannot make out a case which was not pleaded by her and cannot adduce any evidence which was never put forward in the pleadings and does not flow from the facts and the cause of action alleged in the plaint. As such, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the trial court to set aside the same.
14. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed confirming the common order dated 21.10.2021 in I.A. Nos.772 and 773 of 2021 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ Dr.G. RADHA RANI, J April 02nd, 2025 KTL