Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ms.Bandaru Subbamma vs Kadiri Nagendra Kalyan 3 Ors on 27 December, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.S.No.887 of 2017
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE
No. NOTE
25) 27.12.2023 AVRB, J
While perusing the record to prepare the
judgment, it is found that the appellant filed
ASMP No.2185 of 2017 to adduce additional
documentary evidence with specific contention
that in view of the findings of the learned
District Judge in O.S.No.10 of 2010
commenting against the case of the plaintiff
that plaintiff did not file any proof to show the
ownership of Chidambara Rao, the plaintiff is
advised to file this petition. The plaintiff is not
aware of the sale deed, dated 29.06.1936 at
the time of suit, as such, he is advised to file
the present petition.
This appeal suit is heard along with ASMP
No.2185 of 2017. Having considered the
material available on record, the matter need
further clarification from both sides.
The specific case of the plaintiff is that
Survey No.580 consists of Ac.0-25 cents.
Survey No.581/2 consists of Ac.5-56 cents.
2
One Veerula Chidambara Rao was the original
owner of the land in an extent of Ac.0-25 cents
in Sy.No.580 and a portion of land in an extent
of Ac.1-75 cents in Sy.No.581/2. So, the claim
of the plaintiff is that Veerula Chidambara Rao
had an extent of Ac.2-00 cents in Sy.No.580
and Sy.No.581/2.
Further case of the appellant is that in
the family partition, Chidambara Rao got
Ac.0-12 ½ cents in Sy.No.580 and Ac.0-87
cents in Sy.No.581/2 total Ac.0-99 ½ cents
under „A‟ schedule and one Hrishikesava Rao
has got Ac.0-12 ½ cents in Sy.No.580 and
Ac.0-88 cents in Sy.No.581/2 total Ac.1-00 ½
cents under „D‟ schedule. Total extent of
Ac.2-00 cents was in exclusive possession and
enjoyment of Hrishikesava Rao by way of
family arrangements after the death of said
Chidambara Rao.
Further case of the appellant was that
Hrishikesava Rao sold Ac.1-00 cents to the
father of Pedda Pullaiah and Ac.0-61 cents to
his wife in the year 1984 and in respect of the
remaining extent of ac.0-29 cents, he executed
a registered GPA in favour of Pedda Pullaiah
and Pedda Pullaiah sold away the same to his
wife. Thus, Ac.0-29 cents is the subject matter.
3
As seen from the judgment of the
learned District Judge, the learned District
Judge made a comment that the plaintiff did
not file any proof to show that Hrishikesava Rao
had title over the total extent of Ac.2-00 cents
and as per Ex.A.2-partition deed, he got only
Ac.1-00 ½ cents but he disposed an extent of
Ac.1-71 cents. Further findings were that the
plaintiff failed to show the link between Ex.A.2-
partition deed and Ex.A.8 to Ex.A.10, Ex.A.3
and Ex.A.5. So, the overall commends were
made against the so-called title of Hrishikesava
Rao especially when he got only Ac.1-00 ½
cents and as there were no proof that
Hrishikesava Rao was in possession of Ac.2-00
cents by way of family arrangements after the
death of Chidambara Rao.
When that is the situation, now the
appellant has come up with ASMP No.2185 of
2017 so as to file the sale deed, dated
29.06.1936
in the name of Chidamabara Rao.
There were no comments made by the learned
District Judge that the plaintiff did not file any
document of title of Chidambara Rao. The
adverse findings were given because the
plaintiff did not file any document to show the
exclusive possession, enjoyment and rights of
Hrishikesava Rao. The ASMP No.2185 of 2017
is supposed to be dealt with looking into Order
41, Rule 27 of C.P.C. However, the appellant
filed ASMP No.2185 of 2017 with a different
document relating to Chidambara Rao. Any
amount of clarification is needed in this regard.
To avoid miscarriage of justice and in the
interest of justice, it is proper to have proper
clarification from both sides as to the relevancy
of document, dated 29.06.1936.
Hence, delete the matter from the
caption for "Reserved for Judgment" and post
the matter before appropriate Bench having the
provision as per roster within one week from
today.
_________
AVRB, J
PGR
