Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Nanduri Venkateswarlu vs Pathuri Venkata Subba Rao on 14 November, 2024

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF
APHC010385742023
                      ANDHRA PRADESH

                        AT AMARAVATI               [3460]

                        (Special Original

                          Jurisdiction)


  THURSDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

           TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR


                        PRESENT


  THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY


          CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1933/2023


Between:


Nanduri Venkateswarlu                       ...PETITIONER


                             AND


Pathuri Venkata Subba Rao and         ...RESPONDENT(S)

Others


Counsel for the Petitioner:


   1.       M R S SRINIVAS
 2




Counsel for the Respondent(S):


    1.     M S R SASHI BHUSHAN


CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2065/2023


Between:


Nanduri Venkateswarlu                   ...PETITIONER


                            AND


Pathuri Venkata Subba Rao and      ...RESPONDENT(S)

Others


Counsel for the Petitioner:


    1.     M R S SRINIVAS


Counsel for the Respondent(S):


    1.     M S R SASHI BHUSHAN


The         Court       made      the      following:
 3




     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY


              C.R.P.Nos.1933 and 2065 of 2023


COMMON ORDER:

C.R.P.No.1933 of 2023 is filed against the order dated 24.07.2023 in

I.A.No.2303 of 2022 in L.G.C.No.1 of 2014 passed by the Principal

District Judge, East Godavari District.

2. C.R.P.No.2065 of 2023 is filed against the order dated

24.07.2023 in I.A.No.2367 of 2022 in L.G.C.No.1 of 2014 passed by the

Principal District Judge, East Godavari District.

3. Brief facts: Petitioner herein filed L.G.C.No.1 of 2014 for delivery of

possession of schedule property after removing the structures and for

other consequential reliefs. In the L.G.C., it was pleaded that Item

Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule property is a single plot bearing No.14

approved by Rajahmundry Urban with L.P.No.185/90. It was also

pleaded that the said plot was sold in favour of the Kuchimanchi

Seetharama Lakshmi under a registered sale deed dated 05.06.1952

and in turn the said property was sold to Nanduri Prakasamma vide

registered sale deed dated 20.05.1954 vide document No.1705/1954. It

was further pleaded that Nanduri Sambasiva Rao purchased the

property in the name of his mother Nanduri Prakasamma. Nanduri

Sambasiv Rao died on 30.05.1962 intestate. Later, his mother died

intestate on 08.06.1966.

4. The Petitioner is the only son of Nanduri Sambasiva Rao and

grand son of Nanduri Prakasamma. The Petitioner sold an extent of

356 sq.yards forming out of 671 sq. yards of plot No.14 to Appala

Subrahmanyam on 09.03.2011. At the time of sale in favour of Appala

Subrahmanyam, it was found that some documents were fabricated

without any title by some land grabbers and the respondents in respect

of plot No.14. The first document was a registered sale deed dated

11.09.1989 vide document No.6406/1989 said to have been executed

by Kuchimanchi Seetharama Lakshmi for part of plot No.14 of an extent

of 318 ¾ sq. yards in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is the case

of the Petitioner that Kuchimanchi Seetharama Lakshmi did not have

any right or title in the schedule property after execution of sale deed

dated 20.05.1954 vide document No.1705/1954 as mentioned supra.

5. Respondents filed counter disputing the claim of the Applicant.

While so, the Petitioner filed the above mentioned applications to

receive certified copies of death certificate of Smt. Kuchimanchi

Seetharama Lakshmi issued by Kandarada Gram Panchayat and birth

certificate of the petitioner issued by the Municipal Corporation,

Rajamahendravaram. The birth certificate was sought to establish that

petitioner was born on 06.12.1961 and the date of birth was wrongly

mentioned as 1966 in the Aadhar card. The said applications were

rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the petitioner failed to

show reasons to condone the delay in receiving the documents. Hence,

the present revision petitions.

6. Heard Sri M.R.S.Srinivas, learned counsel for the Petitioner

and Sri M.S.R Sashibhushan,learned counsel for the Respondents

through virtual mode.

7. Contentions: Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended

that the death certificate being critical document to establish his specific

plea in the plaint that late Kuchimanchi Seetharama Lakshmi was not

alive on the date of execution of sale deed and that the trial Court

should not have rejected the application. The learned counsel for

Respondent contended that there is no foundational pleading and that

the document is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the case.

8. Learned counsel for the Respondents relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bagai Construction

through its Proprietor Lalit Bagai v. Gupta Building Material Store1

and judgments of this Court in G.Sanjeeva Reddy and others v.

Indukuru Lakshmamma and others2 and Ravi Satish v. Edala Durga

Prasad and others3. It is also his contention that on earlier occasion,

the Petitioner filed an application to receive certain documents and the

same was rejected by the trial Court, which was confirmed by this Court

(2013) 14 SCC 1

2006 (3) ALT 66

2009 (3) ALT 236

and there cannot be two different yardsticks for the Petitioner and the

Respondents for adducing additional documents.

9. Reasoning: The document that is sought to be marked by the

Petitioner is the death certificate of late Kuchimanchi Seetharama

Lakshmi, who is shown as a vendor in the disputed suit document dated

11.09.1989 vide document No.6406/1989. There is a specific plea that

late Kuchimanchi Seetharama Lakshmi was not alive as on the date of

execution of the disputed document in paragraph 4 of the L.G.C. The

said issue also falls for consideration in a connected suit in O.S.No.143

of 2015, where this issue was specifically pleaded and is under

consideration.

10. As, It is the specific plea in the plaint that late Kuchimanchi

Seetharama Lakshmi was not alive as on the execution of the disputed

document, the death certificate showing the date of death as

12.07.1986 which is now sought to be received in evidence appears to

be critical piece of evidence. The document in question being a public

document and having a likely bearing on the outcome of the suit itself,

this Court is of the opinion that the Court can accept such documents

even at a belated stage.

11. In the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Sugandhi V. P.Rajkumar4, it washeld that a liberal approach should be

2020(10) SCC 706

adopted in permitting the additional documents to be brought on record

as the underlying purpose of litigation is the pursuit of truth.

12. A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors v. Gottumukkala Venkata

Subbamma5. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below;

"The defendant Nos.2 to 5 are in appeal aggrieved against the order passed by the High Court affirming the order passed by the trial Court refusing to permit the appellant to produce additional documents in terms of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

We find that the trial Court as well as the High Court have gravely erred in law in not permitting the defendants to produce documents, the relevance of which can be examined by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence to be led, but to deprive a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice.

It is well settled that rules of procedure are hand-maid of justice and, therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself. held that the documents can be received at a belated stage."

13. The contention of the Respondents that different yardsticks

cannot be applied while accepting the additional documents, appears to

be unfounded. In the said applications, the Respondent sought for

2022 Livelaw (SC) 533

amendment to his written statement and was rejected on merits and

confirmed by this court is of no relevance to the facts of this case.

14. In the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this

Court is inclined to allow the revision petitions by setting aside the

impugned orders of the trial Court dated 24.07.2023.

15. The civil revision petitions are therefore allowed. No order as

to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.