Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Nagatham Muni Rajamma vs Nagatham Suneetha on 16 July, 2021

  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY,
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
-PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

IA No. 1 OF 2021
IN
AS NO: 1280 OF 2017

Between:

1.

2.

BO

Nagatham Muni Rajamma, W/o. Nagatham Pulla Reddy, Aged about 68 years,
Occ: Housewife, R/o. Tirupati (Died) Rep. by LR Nagatham Mukunda Reddy
Nagatham Mukunda Reddy, S/o.Late N.Pulla Reddy, Aged about 42 years, Occ:
Software Professional, R/o. D.No.6-3-852/20/B, Aparajitha Colony, Ameerpet,
Hyderabad.
. .Petitioners/Appellants
(Appellants in AS 1280 OF 2017
on the file of High Court)
AND

. Nagatham Suneetha, W/o. Late N.Muralidnar Reddy, Aged about 31 years,

residing at D.No.13-3-305/A5, And at present residing at Kopparavandla palli

Village, Perumallapalli Post, Tirupati Rural Mandal,Chittoor District.

Nagatham Chandana, D/o. N.Suneetha, Aged about 11 years, Minor, Rep. by

her Mother/Next Friend, Smt.N.Suneetha, W/o. Late N.Muralidhar Reddy, Aged

about 31 years, residing at D.No.13-3-305/A5, And at present residing at

Kopparavandia palli Village, Perumallapalli Post, Tirupati Rural Mandal,Chittoor

District.

Smt.Nagatharn Chengamma, W/o. Late Muni Reddy (Died)

Nagatham Munikrishna Reddy, S/o. Late N.Pulla Redy, Aged about 41 years,

unsound mind person, Rep.by his mother guardian/ Next Friend N.Munirajamma

D2 (Died) 4

... Respondents/Plaintiffs
(Respondents in-do-)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to direct the officer to return the
original documents marked as EX.B.2 to Ex.B.7, filed before V Additional District Judge,
Tirupati in OS. 139/2009 and now part of record in AS.No. 1280/2017 by substituting the
Xerox copy of documents marked as EX.B.2 to B.7, pending disposal of AS No. 1280
of 2017, on the file of the High Court.

The petition coming on for hearing and upon perusing the petition and affidavit

filed herein, and Order of High Court dated 19-12-2017 made in ASMP.No. 3224 of
2017, and Order dated 6-2-2018 made in ASMP.No. 3223 of 2017 and upon hearing the
arguments of Sri O. Manoher Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners/Appellants, and M/s
Nimmagadda Revathi, Advocate for the respondents, the Court made the following

ORDER

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN LA.No.1 of 2021

In A.S.NO.1280 of 2017

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice B.Krishna Mohan)

The petitioners herein who are the appellants in the main appeal filed this interlocutory application in A.S.No.1280 of 2017 pending on the file of this court for release of original documents, which are marked as Exs.B2 to B7 before the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, in O.S.No.139 of 2009 against which the present appeal arises. The respondents 1 and 2? herein in the interlocutory application and as well as in the main appeal filed the counter

affidavit opposing the above said prayer.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants and

the learned counsel for the respondents/ respondents.

3, The respondents | and 2? initiated action in O.S.No0.139 of 2009 on the file of V Additional District J udge, Tirupati seeking for partition of the plaint schedule properties and allotment of 4/15" share to them and s€parate possession of the same along with costs against the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein. The same was decreed partly declaring that the plaintiffs herein have got 1/4" share in item Nos.1 and 2 of plaint 'A' schedule property. Accordingly, a preliminary decree was passed

vide its judgment, dated 06.09.2017,

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/2™ and 38 defendants therein preferred an appeal before this court and this court passed an interim order dated 19.12.2017 staying the passing of final decree pending further orders with a permission to go on with the other proceedings up to that stage. However, the petitioners herein field the present application before this court seeking for return of the original documents marked as Exs B2 to B7 in the suit on the ground that they are required for their personal use with an undertaking that they are not going to create any third party rights with respect to the suit schedule properties

basing upon the above said documents.

5. Opposing the same, the respondents 1 and 2 as stated above filed counter stating that if the above said original documents are returned, they would create unnecessary litigation to grab the suit schedule properties pending the appeal and in such an event, they would be put to an irreparable loss and hardship. Further stated that the trial court also rightly discarded the alleged Wills marked under Exs.B5 and B7 as fabricated and created fraudulenty for the purpose of the suit and disbelieved the case of the

defendants/petitioners/appellants herein,

6. The learned counsel for the respondents also refer to the following provision of law:

" Order XT Rule 9 CPC:

9. Return of admitted documents.- (1) Any person, whether a

party to the Suit or not, desirous of receiving back any document

produced by him in the suit and placed on the record shall, unless the document is impounded. under rule 8, be entitled to receive back the same,--

(a) where the suit is one in which an appeal is not allowed, when the suit has been disposed of, and

(b) where the suit is one in which an appeal is allowed, when the court is satisfied that the time for preferring an appeal has elapsed and that no appeal has been preferred or, if an appeal has been preferred, when the appeal has been disposed of:

Provided that a document may be returned at any time earlier than that prescribed by this rule if the person applying there for--

(a) delivers to the proper officer for being substituted for the original,-- (1) in the case of a party to the suit, a certified copy, and Gi) in the case of any other person, and ordinary copy which has been examined, compared and certified in the manner mentioned im sub- rule (2) of rule 17 of Order VU, and

(b) undertakes to produce the original, if required to do so:

Provided also, that no document shall be returned which, by force of the decree, has become wholly void or useless. (2) On the return of a document admitted im evidence, a receipt shall

be given by the person receiving it."

7. As per the above said provision normally the documents can. be returned only after disposal of the appeal. But as per the proviso to the above said rule to return the documents, the certified copies

shall be substituted by the concerned party with an undertaking to

produce the original as and when it is required,

8. In the above said circumstances, this court feels that as it takes much time for listing of the main appeal for final hearing this application is considered now for the interregnum period subject to

the following conditions:

The Registry shall return the original documents/Exs.B? to B7 marked in O.S.No.139 of 2009 on the file of V

Additional District Judge, Tirupati, to the petitioners

herein on furnishing the certified copies of the same in

advance to the Registry by way of substitution,

the above said original documents shall be released to the petitioners herein under a proper receipt and endorsement,

the petitioners shall not create either any third party rights over the suit schedule properties or alter the same basing upon the above said documents,

the petitioners shall not pledge/mortgage the above said original documents in any manner for any purpose,

and

the petitioners shall return the said original documents to the Registry of this court at the time of hearing and

disposal of the main appeal by this court.

Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application is ordered.

~f) oN Ae.

Sd/-M.Suryanadha Reddy

HTRUE COPY/ EBay e

SECTION GEFICER

weer a EER PETE

me er ee

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR