T.Venkata Vijaya Lakshmi vs Kodali Rayana Rao

U.Durga Prasad Rao, J

The challenge in this CRP is to the order dated 13.02.2024 in I.A.No.1337/2023 in IA No.658/2022 in O.S.No.1630/2022 passed by learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada allowing the petition filed under order VII rule 14(3) r/w Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff permitting the plaintiff to mark certified copy of index document regarding volume No.1598 for the document bearing No.1047 to establish his case.

(a) The plaintiff filed O.S.No.1630/2022 seeking permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule site in an extent of 400 Sq. Yds. covered by R.S.No.363/1, Plot No.140 situated in Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. Plaintiff’s case is that the suit schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff’s father Kodali Satyanarayana under registered sale deed dt.16.02.1982 from Bandi Kondaiah and gifted to the plaintiff under a registered document No.3905/2012 dt.28.07.2012 and the plaintiff has been enjoying the same. The revenue survey division records relating to R.S.No.363/1 in an extent of Ac.2.91 cents stands in the name of Bandi Kutumbaiah and maintained by the revenue officers. The said property was obtained by Kutumbaiah in a family partition along with his sons.

(b) While so, the defendant without any title or possession over the schedule property has been trying to trespass into the property with the aid of some fabricated house tax receipts. On 25.08.2022 the defendant and her hooligans tried to trespass into the property and the plaintiff stopped them. The defendant created a document No.1308/1978 which is a fabricated document, the plaintiff will take steps to prosecute the defendant in that regard. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff to protect the suit schedule property.

(a) The defendant filed written statement and contesting the suit. While the defendant was leveling a part of the land measuring 1400 Sq. yds., and fencing the same, the plaintiff started falsely claiming the suit property without any right or title. At the instance of the plaintiff, a pre-litigation case in PLCF.P.No.206/2022 was registered and therefore the plaintiff cannot maintain parallel proceedings by way of present suit. There is a cloud over plaintiff’s title and hence the suit for mere injunction is not maintainable. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaint averments that the plaintiff’s father purchased the suit property and gifted to the plaintiff is false. The admission in the plaint that the defendant has put up barbed fencing stands sufficient proof that the defendant is in possession over 1400 Sq. yds.

(b) The defendant further contended that the property admeasuring 1400 Sq. yds with specific boundaries was bequeathed to the defendant under a registered Will No.3BK/242 dt.15.12.1988 executed by one T.Venkataratnamma who in turn purchased said property under a registered sale deed dt.26.02.1986 from Devabhaktuni Chandramouli. After the death of T.Venkataratnamma the defendant became the absolute owner of the said property and paying the land tax with assessment No.1073248165 and thus the defendant is the owner of the property. The plaint allegations are false and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

While so, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1337/2023 to call for the certified copy of index documents volume No.1598 for document bearing No.1047 under which the plaintiff’s father said to have purchased the suit property from Bandi Kondaiah. The trial court having observed that the defendant \can raise objection at the time of marking of document with regard to the admissibility and relevancy, allowed the petition. Hence the C.R.P.

Heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthi and learned counsel for respondent Bhanu Prasad Chukkapalli.

Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that the documents to be marked are unconnected with the suit property and therefore the trial court ought not to have allowed the petition permitting the respondent/plaintiff to produce the document. The document sought to be brought on record is that of a third party in respect of document No.1047/1982 and not of the suit documents. Learned counsel for respondent supported the impugned order and argued that the documents sought to be produced relate to the suit property and the trial court can decide the relevancy of the documents to the suit after hearing both parties and therefore there is nothing wrong in marking the documents.

The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the C.R.P. to allow?

POINT: The impugned order shows that the trial court observed that the documents which are sought to be received i.e., certified copy obtained from Joint Sub Registrar, Vijayawada are the documents which are relied upon by the plaintiff in the suit and they are said to be connected to the Ex.P1 to P3. The trial court further observed that mere receiving of the documents, would not cause any prejudice to the defendant, inasmuch as, the plaintiff has to prove the documents and the defendant can raise objections as to the admissibility, relevancy and proof. On such consideration the trial court allowed the petition.

On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity because the trial court explicated that mere according permission to the plaintiff does not mean that the documents are accepted to be true and the plaintiff has to prove the relevancy and genuinity of those documents and the defendant can question the same. Therefore, there are no merits in the petition. Accordingly the C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any in this case shall stand closed.