APHC010581242025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Tuesday, the fifth day of May two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.2948 of 2025 Between: S. Jakeer Sab and others ...Petitioners and Shaik Usman Basha and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: 1. N. Aswartha Narayana Counsel for the respondents: 1. M. K. Viswanath Naidu The Court made the following: 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2948 of 2025 ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 02.09.2025 dismissing I.A.No.398 of 2024 in O.S.No.100 of 2022 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Uravakonda filed by the plaintiffs under Order VII, Rule 14 (3) of C.P.C. to grant leave to file the following documents: 1. Original registered sale deed dated 21.10.2019 executed by Bandi Rangappa S/o. Rangappa in favour of Makthum Sab, S/o.Kanagiri Hussain Sab. 2. Original registered sale deed dated 03.10.1932 executed by (i) Golla Anjinamma W/o. Metla Hanumappa, and (ii) Hanumakka, W/o. Thimmappa, in favour of Makthum Sab, S/o. Kanagiri Hussain Sab. 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants. 3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants with the averments, briefly stated, as follows:- a. The plaintiffs are the brothers. Their father is Sabapathi Adam Sab. The plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 purchased the plaint schedule property in S. No. 715 of V.Kothakota village from its original owner Sabhapati Saleem Basha, S/o. Sabhapati Anwar Sab under separate sale deeds dated 07.02.2022 and 09.02.2022 was purchased by the plaintiffs respectively and have been in their possession and enjoyment. The suit schedule properties are 400 Sq. Yds. each to the plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2. The southern boundaries of both the items is open site in S. No. 714-A. 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2948 of 2025 b. (i) Ac.0.09 cents out of the Ac.4.26 cents in S.No.714-A in V.Kothakota village gram panchayat belonged to Sk.Kasim Sab and his son Ibrahim Sab. They sold the property to Sk.Abbas, the father of the defendants, under a registered sale deed dated 27.04.1977. (ii) Ac.0.20 cents out of Ac.4.26 cents in S.No.714-A in the same village originally belonged to Mahaboob Dhoula Sab and Adam Sab who are the sons of Sabhapathi Chinna Masthan Sab. They sold the above said property to Sk.Abbas who is the father of the defendants under a registered sale deed dated 09.07.1982. (iii)Thus, the father of the defendants owned, possessed and enjoyed a total extent of Ac.0.29 cents in S.No.714-A of V.Kothakota village. (iv) After demise of Sk.Abbas, his sons and daughters partitioned their ancestral properties, including the property in S.No.714-A, through a registered partition deed dated 22.10.2016 bearing No.2905 of 2016. c. The defendants are the strangers to the plaint schedule property. However, with a malafide intention to grab the plaint schedule property, after they got their properties partitioned, again obtained a registered rectification deed of partition dated 02.06.2022 with false allegation by altering the S.No.714-A to S.No.715 without having any right over the land in S.No.715. 4. The defendants Nos.1 to 4 filed a written statement with the averments, briefly stated as follows: a. It is true that the father of the defendants purchased 29 cents out of Ac.4.26 cents in Sy.No.714-A under the registered sale deeds dated 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2948 of 2025 27.04.1977 & 09.07.1982; and that the property of the father of the defendants was partitioned by his sons and daughters under the registered partition deed dated 22.10.2016 as stated in the plaint. b. It is false that the defendants got the rectification partition deed executed with a malafide intention to grab the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs have to independently prove their title and possession and the alleged interference by the defendants and cannot rely on the weakness of the case of the defendants, if any. c. The plaint schedule property is originally the ancestral property of the defendants. Subsequent to some transactions, the father of the defendants purchased, under the registered sale deed dated 27.04.1997, the property admeasuring 09 (nine) cents in Sy.No.714-A bounded on East: Hayrick yards of Venkataramanappa and others, West: Hayrick yard of Sile Fhakruddin Sab, North: Rastha and South: Hayrick yard of Sabhapathi Masthan Sab. Thereafter, he purchased, under the registered sale dated 09.07.1982, 20 (twenty) cents in Sy.No.714-A bounded on East: land belonging to Narayanappa, West: remaining land in the same survey number, North: Bavigadda Abbas Sab’s land, and South: Rastha. d. The vendors of the property under the sale dated 09.07.1982, are S.Mahaboob Sab & S.Adam Sab of Kothakota Village and are sons of Masthan Sab and brothers. The plaintiffs are the sons of one of the vendors by name S. Adam Sab. e. Again, the father of the defendants purchased another site admeasuring 12 (twelve) cents in Sy.No.714-A under a registered sale dated 25.08.2003, vide document No.1946 of 2003 from Sili Fhakruddin Sab and Sili Hajara Bi of Kothakota Village. The property is bounded on 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2948 of 2025 East and South: open site belonging to Shaik Abbas in same survey number, West: site belonging to Dasari Srinivasulu and North: road. f. The properties are in contiguous plot of land. They were enjoyed by the father of the defendants till his death on 22.05.2014. His wife Shaik Khairun Bee also died on 10.07.2016. Thereafter, the defendants have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the properties till today. g. At the time of executing the sale deeds, dated 29.05.1977, and 25.08.2003, there was a scribe’s mistake in the Survey number by recording 714-A instead of 715, but, the boundaries were correctly noted. The defendants and their sisters got divided the properties of their father, including the suit schedule properties, under a registered partition deed dated 22.10.2016 after the death of their parents. Subsequently, the defendants came to know that the survey number was wrongly mentioned. Then, the defendants and others approached the mandal surveyor and the office of S.R.O., Uravakonda, and got the wrong survey number rectified on 02.06.2022. h. The plaintiffs, having come to know about the wrong survey number in the partition deed and the link documents, hatched a plan to knock away the valuable properties and created fake registered documents choosing their vendor who had no right or interest over the properties and filed the false suit. They are fully aware that the suit schedule properties fell to the share of the defendants and Raziya Begum, W/o. Jakeer Husain who is the brother of the defendants, but she was not made a party to the suit. Hence, the suit is bad for non joining of necessary party. 6 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2948 of 2025 i. The plaintiffs failed to state the source of title of their vendor S. Saleem Basha in respect of the item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule as on 07.02.2022 and 09.02.2022. Since the vendor of the plaintiffs had no right, title or possession over the plaint schedule properties, he cannot convey them to the plaintiff. So, the sale deeds of the plaintiffs are sham, nominal and created by the plaintiffs to grab the properties at the instance of the vendor, knowing fully well that the properties belong to and are in possession and enjoyment of the defendants. The sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs are not legally valid and do not confer right on the plaintiffs. 5. During the trial, after completion of the evidence of two witnesses, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.398 of 2024 to receive the above said documents by condoning the delay, stating that the great grandfather of the plaintiffs purchased the property in Sy.No.715 of V. Kothakota Village, field limits of Vidapanakal Mandal under two registered sale deeds dated 21.10.1929 & 03.10.1932 under the proposed documents and that they had been traced out recently before filing the petition and further they are very essential to prove the case of the plaintiffs. 6. 6. The petition was opposed by filing a counter of the respondents / defendants stating that these documents don’t relate to suit schedule property and that the alleged purchaser is not the great grandfather of the petitioners and there is no relation between the petitioners and the purchaser under those documents; that if really he is the great grandfather of the petitioners, there is no reason for the petitioners to purchase the plaint schedule properties from a third person who has no right or interest in the property; that the total suit schedule property is 16 cents, whereas the property covered under two proposed documents is 8 cents and moreover, the proposed documents do not contain 7 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2948 of 2025 boundaries of the property purchased out of 26 cents in Sy.No.715; and thus, the proposed documents have no relevance to the suit schedule properties and the petition is filed only to prolong the matter. 7. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the documents proposed to be filed have no substratum in the pleading and therefore, the petitioners are permitted to file the documents, but it would amount to letting evidence without pleading. 8. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. 9. The same arguments were advanced before this Court. 10. First of all, to grant leave under Order VII, Rule 14(3) C.P.C., the petitioners have to state the reason why the documents could not have been filed along with the plaint. The reason stated by the petitioners is that they could trace these documents recently before filing of the petition. Even if it is believed to be true, there is no reference of these documents in the plaint. Furthermore, there is no narration as to how these documents are relevant to the facts in issue. 11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that these sale deeds are link documents to the title of the vendor of the plaintiffs, since the vendor got a share of property in the portion of the properties covered by the above sale deeds. Therefore, these documents are intended to be filed as a link documents to prove title of the vendor of the plaintiffs. As such, it is a piece of evidence in support of the case already pleaded. However, there is no clarity as to how these documents would provide as a link. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to explain the same by filing a better affidavit, if necessary. 8 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2948 of 2025 12. Therefore, the revision petition is disposed of setting aside the order, dated 02.09.2025, in I.A.No.398 of 2024 in O.S.No.100 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Uravakonda giving liberty to the petitioners to file a better affidavit explaining as to how these documents are relevant to the case on hand and thereafter, the trial Court shall dispose of the petition afresh after hearing both the parties giving the respondents also an opportunity to contest the petition after filing additional better affidavit. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.05.05.2026 NSM / RAR