Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Common Order vs Court Of The Junior Civil Judge on 10 December, 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
C.R.P.Nos.192 and 193 of 2021
COMMON ORDER:
As parties in both these revision petitions are one and the same
and both the revisions arise out of two applications out of the very same
suit, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.42 of 2010 in the
Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Gooty against the deceased 1st defendant
seeking permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from
interfering with the plaint schedule property consisting of approximately
Ac.3.12 cents of land. The case of the petitioner was that her husband
was the owner of Ac.5.00 of land out of which 1.88 cents was acquired by
the Government for road widening and compensation was paid to her
husband. After demise of her husband on 06.01.2003, the petitioner came
into possession and enjoyment of the said land and was running a brick
kiln, mechanic shed and residential house. As the deceased 1st respondent
was a stranger to the suit and was trying to trespass into the land, the
petitioner is said to have filed the suit.
3. During the course of suit proceedings, the 2nd respondent,
who was a subsequent purchaser, was impleaded as defendant No.2. On
the death of the deceased 1st defendant, his legal heirs were added as
defendants 3 to 7 in the suit and they are arrayed as respondents 3 to 7
herein. As defendant No.5 had also passed away, his legal heirs were
brought on record as defendants 8 to 10 in the suit and they are arrayed
as respondent Nos.8 to 10 herein.
4. The deceased 1st respondent had filed a written statement
stating that the father-in-law of the petitioner, who was originally the
2 RRR,J
C.R.P.Nos.192 & 193 of 2021
owner and in possession of the property, had sold the said land to two
persons, viz., Imamuddin Sab and C.A. Rahiman under a registered deed
of sale dated 10.09.1984 and the said Imamuddin had sold away Ac.1.00
of land in favour of the deceased 1st defendant by way of registered deed
of sale dated 08.01.1987. On that basis, the deceased 1st defendant
contended that as the father-in-law of the petitioner had sold away the
property, the question of the husband of the petitioner or the petitioner
still retaining any title in the property does not arise.
5. After due trial and hearing the suit was allowed by way of a
decree and judgment dated 29.11.2017. Aggrieved by the said judgment
and decree, the respondents herein had filed A.S.No.31 of 2017 in the
Court of VI Additional District Judge, Ananthapur at Gooty. This appeal
was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside
and the case was remanded to the trial Court.
6. In the course of hearing of the appeal, the appellate Court
noticed that the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer giving title to
the petitioner herein, which was marked as Ex.A.1, had not been dealt
with properly by the trial Court. The appellate Court found that while
Ex.A.1 was accepted by the trial Court, in one part of the judgment, on
the ground that Ex.A.1 proceedings had not been challenged by the
vendors of the deceased 1st defendant, the trial Court had also held that
the burden of clarifying Ex.A.1 remains on the revenue authorities. The
appellate Court held that these mutually contradictory findings required to
be resolved, and directed that the trial Court should appreciate the effect
and impact of Ex.A.1 document in accordance with the law after
appreciating the evidence placed before it in accordance with law.
3 RRR,J
C.R.P.Nos.192 & 193 of 2021
7. After remand, the matter was again taken up by the trial
Court. At that stage, the 2nd respondent on behalf of the respondents had
filed I.A.No.848 of 2018 requesting the trial Court to receive certain
documents, which were an endorsement of the Tahsildar Pamidi, under
the Right to Information Act, 2005, dated 22.01.2018 and certified copy of
the plaint and valuation certificate in O.S.No.1 of 2015 etc.
8. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on
31.12.2019 against which C.R.P.No.435 of 2020 has been filed before this
Court. This Court by order dated 18.08.2020 had allowed the said revision
petition and directed the trial Court to receive the documents filed by the
respondents herein.
9. In compliance of the said directions of this Court, the trial
Court received the said documents and marked them as exhibits.
10. At this stage, it is necessary to explain the effect of these
documents. It appears that Ex.A.1 is a proceeding of the Mandal Revenue
Officer/Tahsildar, Pamidi, which gives title to the petitioner herein. The
original of Ex.A.1 could not be marked and only a Xerox copy of the same
was marked. The Tahsildar, Pamidi, in the course of his deposition as
PW.3, had stated that the record relating to Ex.A.1 is not available, in his
office, and the same would show that as Ex.A.1 could not be relied upon,
PW.3 had filed an application under R.T.I. Act seeking information about
Ex.A.1. The Tahsildar, Pamidi, who is PW.3, issued an answer to the query
under the R.T.I Act stating that the original of Ex.A.1 is not available in
the office and that as per the Xerox proceedings the names of Imamuddin
Sab and Yerragudi Kareem Sab and Yerragudi Allabaksh are not found in
the said Xerox proceedings. This endorsement was marked as Ex.B.26 and
cross-examination was conducted in relation to these documents. The trial
4 RRR,J
C.R.P.Nos.192 & 193 of 2021
Court recorded that DW.1 was cross-examined three times after marking
of these documents and the matter was posted for arguments. At that
stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.70 and 71 of 2021 for reopening the case
to examine PW.3 to adduce evidence about Ex.B.26 and Ex.A.1 and other
documents by confronting PW.3. The reasons given by the petitioner in
support of these applications is that the authenticity and genuineness of
the documents under Ex.B.26 to Ex.B.40 as well as Ex.A.1 can be
ascertained only by cross-examining the issuing authority who is PW.3
and as such it is necessary to cross-examine PW.3.
11. The respondents contested these applications by stating that
nothing further can be elicited from PW.3, as he had already stated in his
earlier cross-examination that the original of Ex.A.1 was not in the custody
of his office and the same is merely recorded in Ex.B.26.
12. The trial Court after hearing both sides, was pleased to
dismiss the applications holding that the question whether Ex.A.1 is
genuine or not is immaterial for recalling PW.3. Elaborate cross-
examination has already been conducted on Ex.A.1 and Ex.B.26 and
further cross-examination is not necessary. Aggrieved by the said order
these civil revision petitions have been filed.
13. Heard Sri P. Narasimhulu, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned counsel appearing for
the 2nd respondent.
14. The petitioner relied upon Ex.A.1 to demonstrate her case.
The said Ex.A.1 is said to be a copy of the proceedings available in the
office of Tahsildar, Pamidi. However, the said Tahsildar, Pamidi, as PW.3
has stated that the original on the basis of which Ex.A.1 is said to have
been issued, is not available in the office of the Tahsildar. The said
5 RRR,J
C.R.P.Nos.192 & 193 of 2021
Tahsildar had also issued Ex.B.26 under the R.T.I. Act, on certain queries
raised in the request letter. One of the queries appears to be as to
whether the original records relating to Ex.A.1 are available in the office.
The Tahsildar gave the answer that such records are not available. This
reply of the Tahsildar was marked as Ex.B.26.
15. From the contents of the order of the trial Court, it appears
that the cross-examination has been carried out on two occasions.
16. In the circumstances, the applications filed by the petitioner
to cross-examine PW.3 to confront some documents again would be an
exercise in futility, as the witness has already answered the questions
relating to Ex.A.1, and Ex.B.26, and it is only a reiteration of his statement
in Court. In the circumstances, it is not clear as to what the petitioner
wishes to elicit from PW.3. There is no pleading either in the affidavit
supporting the application before the trial Court or in the affidavit filed
before this Court in these revision petitions, to explain as to the purpose
for which the petitioner seeks to recall PW.3. The contents in these
pleadings are not sufficient to make a case for reopening the evidence.
17. In the circumstances, there are no merits in the civil revision
petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
10th December, 2021
Js.
6 RRR,J
C.R.P.Nos.192 & 193 of 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
C.R.P.Nos.192 & 193 of 2021
10th December, 2021
Js.
