APHC010523862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Tuesday, the Fourteenth Day of October Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 2680 of 2025 Between: Thammineni Lakshmi Devi and others ...Petitioners and Dabbara Nagamani and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: 1. S. Chandra Sekhar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Nil The Court made the following: 2 C.R.P.No.2680 of 2025 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the objections raised on 18.09.2025 in the plaint vide C.F.R.No.1551 of 2025 by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Banaganapalle. 2. The suit was filed by the revision petitioners against the respondents seeking the following reliefs: a. For partition of the plaint schedule properties in to 50 equal shares with reference to the good and bad qualities and delivery of possession of 10 /50th share to the plaintiffs each and 5/50th share each to defendants No.1 & 2 and 2/50th share each to D-3 to D-7. b. To declare that the reg. sale deeds doc.no.245/2016, dated 04.03.2016, doc.no.1336/2016, dated 29.08.2016 and doc.no.1385/2017, dated 31.07.2017 the husband of 3rd defendant by name D.Seshama Naidu was executed in favour of 8th and 9th defendants are null and void and same is non-est. c. To declare that the reg. sale deed doc.no.1562/2019, dated: 19.07.2019 the 9th defendant was executed in favour of 10th defendant is null and void and same is non-est. d. Consequently issue necessary directions to the Sub. Registrar Office of Registrar of Assurances, Owk Village & Mandal, effecting the cancellation of said reg. sale deeds mentioned above i.e., reg. sale deeds doc.no.245/2016, dated 04.03.2016, doc.no.1336/2016, dated 29.08.2016 and doc.no.1385/2017 dated 31.07.2017 and reg. sale deed doc.no.1562/2019, dated 3 C.R.P.No.2680 of 2025 19.07.2019 on the file of S.R.O., Owk by making entry in their records regarding the order of this honourable court. e. To grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the plaint schedule properties to any body. f. For the cost of suit. g. For such other relief as this honorable court deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of this suit in the interest of justice. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is briefly as follows: The plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of late Dabbara Venkataiah and Dabbara Lakshmamma who are the parents of the plaintiffs and some of the defendants, and that the revenue records also show their names, but, after the death of Dabbara Venkataiah and Dabbara Lakshmamma, the plaintiffs and defendants Nos.1 to 7 are jointly enjoying the plaint schedule properties, however, without knowledge of the plaintiffs, D3 executed sale deeds in favour of D8 and D9 and in turn D9 executed sale deed in favour of D10. The plaintiffs valued the suit for the relief of partition and cancellation of sale deeds and also for permanent injunction. 4. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs filed the following documents: i. Family Genealogy filed on behalf of the plaintiffs & defendants (Original) ii. Pattadar Pass book bearing patta No.136 of B.Uppaluru Village was standing in the name of Dabbara Lakshmamma issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Kolimigundla Mandal. (Photostat copy) 4 C.R.P.No.2680 of 2025 iii. 1-B ROR patta No.1362 vide app.No.ROR012363479774, dated 16.06.2023 issued by Tahsildar, Kolimigundla for land Sy.No.98-2- acre 1.25, Sy.No.46-4 - ac.0.90, Sy.No.46-3 - ac.1.59 cents of B.Uppaluru Village in the name of Dabbara Lakshmamma. (Certified copy) iv. 1-B ROR patta No.2 vide app.no.ROR012363479994, dated 16.06.2023 issued by Tahsildar, Kolimigundla for land Sy.No.51-B- acre 0.10 cents of B. Uppaluru Village in the name of Dabbara Venkataiah. (Certified copy) v. Family Member certificate issued by Tahsildar, Kolimigundla standing in the name of deceased D.Lakshmamma. (Photostat copy) vi. Regd. sale deed dated: 04.03.2016, Doc.no.245/2016 at S.R.O., Owk executed in favour of 8th defendant by husband of 3rd defendant (Certified copy) vii. Regd. sale deed dated: 29.08.2016, Doc.No.1336/2016 at S.R.O., Owk executed in favour of 9th defendant by husband of 3rd defendant. (Certified copy) viii. Regd. sale deed dated: 31.07.2017, Doc.No.1385/2017 at S.R.O., Owk executed in favour of 8th defendant by husband of 3rd defendant. (Certified copy) ix. Regd. sale deed dated: 19.07.2019, Doc.No.1562/2019 at S.R.O., Owk executed in favour of 10th defendant by 9th defendant. (Certified copy) 5. However, the plaint was returned on 14.08.2025 with the following objections: i. Proof of necessary documents should be shown. 5 C.R.P.No.2680 of 2025 ii. Explain how the cancellation and registered sale deeds 1)245/16, 2) 1336/16, 3)1385/2017 are maintainable without providing proof documents, that they belong to ancestral property. Hence returned. Time 7 days.” 6. The plaint was returned answering the objections with reference to the decision of this High Court in Mohd. Osman Ali Vs. Second Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and another 1 , wherein at paragraph No.3 it is held as follows: “…When a party files a suit, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure and Civil Rules of Practice, it is no part of the duty of the Court to examine, at the stage of scrutiny and registration of the suit, whether the plaintiff has adduced sufficient documentary evidence in support of his prayer in the suit. If the plaintiff fails to file proper material to substantiate his pleas, he will be doing so at his peril. But the Court cannot, at the scrutiny stage, insist on the plaintiff to file the documents, which in its opinion are relevant for granting relief…” 7. Thereafter, on 18.08.2025, again the plaint was returned with the objection that the previous objections were not complied. The objection was answered on 19.08.2025 stating that during the trial and enquiry, depending up on the pleadings of the defendants, necessary steps will be taken to call for the records from the office of the Tahsildar to decide or adduce oral evidence or extract evidence by way of cross- examination and that this is all crafting of advocate, he would succeed in trial. Again, the decision in Mohd. Osman Ali Vs. Second Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and another (supra) is cited. Then, the matter was called on bench. The counsel for the 1 2010 (4) ALD 273 6 C.R.P.No.2680 of 2025 plaintiffs was heard. Then, on 18.09.2025, the trial Court returned the plaint with the following objections: “Heard. Perused the records and also the citation filed by the learned counsel. Upon considering the material available on record, this court finds ambiguity in the plaint averments. As such the plaintiff is directed to clarify the following points. 1. When the second defendant refused to register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, and when the plaintiff and the first defendant went to the second defendant to clear the loan amount, and when the loan amount was cleared has to be mentioned in the plaint? 2. How many Oppudala Kararunamas have been given by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff has to be clarified. 3. It is necessary to clarify whether Oppudala Kararunamas, and the undertaking, which is allegedly given by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff, is one and the same are not. Time, 15 days.” 8. Aggrieved by these objections, this revision petition is filed. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners / plaintiffs submitted that the objections initially raised are duly answered with reference to the case cited and that the objections raised on 18.09.2025 are not based on any pleadings. He further submitted that there is urgency for registration of the suit as the defendants are trying to further alienate the properties causing complexity in the issue and the objections raised by the trial Court have no basis to return the plaint. 7 C.R.P.No.2680 of 2025 10. Perused the plaint and the objections. 11. In the light of the decision cited above and the documents already filed along with the plaint, this Court is of the view that the objections raised initially have been duly answered and that the objections raised on 18.09.2025 have no basis on the pleadings in the plaint. As such, the trial Court is directed to register the suit, if otherwise in order. 12. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.14.10.2025 Issue C.C. by 16.10.2025 b/o NSM 8 C.R.P.No.2680 of 2025 92 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 2680 of 2025 Dt.14.10.2025 Issue C.C. by 16.10.2025 b/o NSM