APHC010485372022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1914/2022 Between: Katta Rama Murthy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Tunuguntla Seetha Rama Raju Died and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P VIJAYA KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1914 of 2022 ORDER: 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order dated 27.07.2022 passed in I.A.No.273 of 2022 in O.S.No.188 of 2011 by the Judge, Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District. 2. The brief facts so far: The Petitioners herein are the Plaintiffs in the suit. The suit O.S.No.188 of 2011 was filed for declaration of title and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. The case of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs is that the suit schedule property was originally owned by the great grandfather of the Petitioner/Plaintiff by name Katta Venkatappaiah and his brother Katta Venkata Krishnaiah. The said Venkatappaiah had a son by name Katta Rangaiah i.e. grandfather of Petitioners/Plaintiffs, who had two sons viz., Peda Venkata Swamy i.e. father of the Plaintiff No.1 and Katta China Venkata Swamy. The father of the Plaintiff No.1 had died in the year 1961. 3. The schedule property is a part of the property belonging to the grandfather of the Plaintiff No.1 i.e. Katta Rangaiah and the said property was partitioned under a registered Partition Deed dated 01.07.1957 and in the said partition ‘A’ schedule property under that document was allotted to Katta Peda Venkata Swamy i.e. father of the Plaintiff No.1 and Katta China Venkata Swamy was allotted ‘B’ schedule property under the said document. Thereafter, the Petitioners/Plaintiffs had succeeded to the property. 3 4. It was also pleaded in the plaint that item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was mortgaged to the purchasers of the Defendants under a registered Mortgage Deed dated 22.06.1954. Though the amount due under the mortgage was discharged, the Defendants are claiming to be the owners of the schedule property. Certain suits, which have been filed by the Defendants against the other Defendants, were also mentioned in the plaint. The claim of the Plaintiffs was that they are the title owners of the schedule property as pleaded in the plaint. Hence, the present suit was filed. 5. The Defendants filed their elaborate written statement disputing the claim of the Plaintiffs. 6. In the course of trial, P.Ws 1 to 7 were examined on behalf of the Plaintiffs and when the suit was posted for further evidence of Plaintiffs, the Petitioners/Plaintiffs filed I.A.No.173 of 2022 seeking to bring on record the following documents:- Sl.No. Date Description of documents Remarks 1. 16.12.1898 Certified copy of Sale Deed document No.3212/1898 executed by Kondapaturu Seethamma in favour of Katta Venkatappa and Katta Venkata Krishnamma regarding land Ac.2-49 cents in D.No.695 + Telugu typed copy. 2. 01.07.1949 Certified copy of Mortgage by conditional Sale Deed document No.2682/1949 executed by Katta Venkata Swamy etc. in favour of Thunuguntla Venkatappaiah regarding D.No.695/A, Ac.5-73 cents & D.No.613, 614, Ac.5-55 ½ cents total Ac.11-28 ½ cents + Telugu typed copy. 3. 24.12.1952 Certified copy of Possessory Mortgage Deed document No.3987/1952 executed by Katta Peda Venkata Swamy and others in favour of Thunuguntla Venkatappaiah regarding land D.No.697 A/2 total Ac.3.00 cents + Telugu typed copy. 4 4. 24.12.1952 Certified copy of Lease Agreement document No.3988/1952 executed by Thunuguntla Venkatappaiah in favour of Koppala Kotaiah regarding land D.No.697-B, Ac.1-90 cents & D.No.697 A/2 total Ac.3.00 cents + Telugu typed copy. 5. 18.08.2005 Death Certificate of Katta Subbayamma i.e. the death on 02.06.1991. 6. 23.03.2011 Death Certificate of Budhireddy Durga Mohan Reddy i.e. the death on 19.02.2011. 7. 29.10.2013 Death Certificate of Katta Pattabhiramaiah i.e. death on 26.09.2013. 8. 11.02.2020 Death Certificate of Didugu Rama Koteswara Rao i.e. death on 25.01.2020. 9. 27.08.1924 Certified copy of Sale Deed document No.3679/1924 executed by Kurra Ramanna and others in favour of Veenisety Nagabhushanam regarding D.No.695/A, Ac.1-40 cents + Telugu typed copy. 10. 24.02.1924 Certified copy of non possessory mortgage deed Doc.No.519/1924 executed by Kurra Ramanna and others in favour of Cherukupalli Venkata Surava Avadhanulu regarding D.No.990/A Ac.3-34 cents and D.No.989 Ac.2-93 cents + Telugu typed copy. 11. 21.05.1906 Certified copy of Sale Deed doc.No.391/1906 executed by Sastrulu in favour of Kurra Ramanna, S/o Kotappa regarding Ac.2-98 cents + Telugu typed copy. 12. 07.01.2022 Copy of Statement of account of Katta Rama Murthy issued by State Bank of India, Kothapet, Guntur. 7. The Respondent Nos.2 to 5 opposed the said application by filing their counter. Thereafter, the trial Court dismissed the said I.A. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 8. Heard Sri P. Vijaya Kiran, learned counsel for the Petitioners. 9. The notice to the contesting respondents i.e. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 was served among others. However, there is no appearance from their end. The documents filed by the Petitioners/Plaintiffs are certified copies of sale transactions/deeds and death certificates of certain individuals. 5 10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners/Plaintiffs that the suit is only at the stage of Plaintiffs’ evidence and the Defendants are having ample opportunity to cross examine the Plaintiffs’ witnesses, while leading their evidence. It was contended that the Respondents/Defendants cannot plead any prejudice. 11. This Court finds merit in the submissions made by the counsel for the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and the trial Court should have accepted those documents rather than rejecting them. The delay in filing the application per se is not the criteria for rejecting the application and the criteria for rejecting an application is prima facie relevancy of the documents to the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.K. Velusamy vs. N.Palanisamy1 held that the documents which are relevant for adjudication can be produced at a later stage of suit on some costs for delayed production. The documents in question are public documents pertaining to schedule property and appear to be prima facie relevant. 12. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set-aside the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and Petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the counsel for contesting respondents in the trial Court. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 09.01.2025 IS 1 (2011) 11 SCC 275 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1914 of 2022 Date: 09.01.2025 IS