Date of reserved for orders Date of pronouncement Date of uploading APHC010149642026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE 16 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1060/2026 BETWEEN: 1. M.SAINATH, S/o YEARS, OCC: OPPOSITE TO MANJUNATHA THEATRE PALAMANERMANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 1. M TANISHQ, S/ STUDENT, R/ R.C.NAGAR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 2. M HARITHIK, S/ STUDENT, R/ R.C.NAGAR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. MEKALA NAGAMMA, W/O M.PEDDAANALAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC KRISHNA TEMPLE, DWARAKANAGAR, KADAPA. 4. G PADMAVATHI, W/ 49 YEARS, R/ VIDYANAGAR COLONY, TIRUPATI RURAL, PERUR PANCHAYAT, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. Date of reserved for orders : 10.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 16.07.2026 Date of uploading : 17.07.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 16th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1060/2026 o. MEKALA VISWANATHAM, AGED ABOUT 30 PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/o.D.No. 17 OPPOSITE TO MANJUNATHA THEATRE, JAVALAI STREET, PALAMANERMANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ….PETITIONER AND M TANISHQ, S/o. GOPINATH, AGED ABOUT 21 YEAR, OCC. STUDENT, R/o.FLAT.No.304, RAJAMAHAL APARTMENTS, R.C.NAGAR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. M HARITHIK, S/o. GOPINATH, AGED ABOUT 18 YEAR, OCC. STUDENT, R/o.FLAT.No.304, RAJAMAHAL APARTMENTS, R.C.NAGAR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. MEKALA NAGAMMA, W/O M.PEDDAANALAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/o. D.No. 1/718 KRISHNA TEMPLE, DWARAKANAGAR, KADAPA. G PADMAVATHI, W/o. G.CHANDRA SEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/o.D.No. 3-2-12/LA, 3RD CROSS WEST, VIDYANAGAR COLONY, TIRUPATI RURAL, PERUR PANCHAYAT, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3330] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO . MEKALA VISWANATHAM, AGED ABOUT 30 PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/o.D.No. 17-81, , JAVALAI STREET, ….PETITIONER . GOPINATH, AGED ABOUT 21 YEAR, OCC. .304, RAJAMAHAL APARTMENTS, YEAR, OCC. .304, RAJAMAHAL APARTMENTS, MEKALA NAGAMMA, W/O M.PEDDAANALAH, AGED ABOUT . 1/718-3, NEAR G.CHANDRA SEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 12/LA, 3RD CROSS WEST, VIDYANAGAR COLONY, TIRUPATI RURAL, PERUR 2 5. S KANTHAMMA, W/o. S.VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/o.D.No. 1/718-2, NEAR KRISHNA TEMPLE, DWARAKANAGAR, KADAPA. 6. G TRIVENI, W/O LATE G.PARARIDAMAHAMSA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/o.D.No. 1/718-2, NEAR KRISHNA TEMPLE, DWARAKANAGAR, KADAPA 7. M GOPINATH, S/O MEKALA PEDDA ANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/o.D.No. 8-3-231,W59, FLAT No. 202, SRI HAYAGREEVASADA APARTMENTS, WOMEN'S CO.SOCIETY, JUBLEE HILLS ROAD NO.2, HYDERABAD. 8. DR G HEMAGIRI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O.D.No. 17-81, OPPOSITE TO MANJUNATHA THEATRE, JAVALAI STREET, PALAMANER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 9. G H VENKATA RAMANA, C/o. DR.G.HEMAGIRI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/o.D.No. 17-81, OPPOSITE TO MANJUNATHA THEATRE, JAVALAI STREET, PALAMANER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 10. K NANDA KISHORE KUMAR, S/o. NAGESWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O.D.No. 18/465, B.K.M.STREET, KADAPA. 11. SANKAR, C/O SANKAR DIGITAL PHOTO STUDIOS, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/o.D.No. 4/490, V.G.P. TRAVELS, OLD BUS STAND, KADAPA. 12. N V PRASAD, C/o. SRI MAHAVEER FILMS, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/o.D.No.13/6/600/44/158/4, PEDDA KAPU LAYOUT, TIRUPATI. 13. A VENKATESWARA RAO, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/o.FLAT No. 408, PRABHTKAR APARTMENT, VIJAYANAGAR COLONY, HYDERABAD-57 14. ANDHRA PRAGATHI GRAMEENA BANK, JAYANGAR, COLONY, KADAPA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 15. ING VYSYA BANK, D.No. 21/77, OPPOSITE COLLECTRATE, 7 ROADS CIRCLE. KADAPA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 3 16. KARUR VYSYA BANK, , CHINNA CHOWK, KADAPA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 17. ICICI BANK, KOTI REDDY CIRCLE. OPPOSITE S.P.BUNGALOW, KADAPA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, 18. INDIAN BANK, , POLICE LANE, NTR CIRCLE, NEAR UMESHCHANDRA KALYANA MANDAPAM, KADAPA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 19. BANK OF BARODA, D.NO.48, VASAVI COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, KOTI REDDY STREET, KADAPA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 20. INDIAN BANK, PALAMANER BRANCH, D.NO. 12/57, JAVELI STREET, PALAMANER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 21. SHRIRAM CHITS PVT LTD, D.NO. 7/107-3, OBULA REDDY COMPLEX, JAYANAGAR COLONY, KADAPA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANEGAR. 22. SHRIRAM CHITS PVT LTD, TIRUPATI BRANCH-1, FLAT NO. 27. D.NO. 8-119, 1ST FLOOR, RAYALACHERUVU ROAD, TIRUPATI REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 23. SHRIRAM CHITS PVT LTD, , TIRUPATI BRANCH-2, D.NO. 138/A-2, 1ST FLOOR, THEERTHA KATTA STREET, TIRUPATI REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGAR. 24. SHRIRAM CHITS PVT LTD, BESIDE KARUR VYSYA BANK, M.G.ROAD. PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 25. M/S TRIVENI ENTERPRISES, , KOTIREDDY STREET, KADAPA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 26. M/S HDFC BANK, KADAPA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. ….RESPONDENT(S): 4 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order, dated 04-02-2026 made in I.A.No.591 of 2025 in O.S.No.22 of 2013 on the file of the Court of The VIII Addl. District Judge’s Court, Kadapa, Y.S.R District and pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S PARINEETA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T BALAJI 2. VENKATA SIVA NAGARAJ BONKURI 3. V MAHESWAR REDDY 4. KUNUKU RAJA SEKHAR 5. J UGRANARASIMHA The Court made the following: 5 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.02.2026 in I.A. No.591 of 2025 in O.S. No.22 of 2013 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge’s Court, Kadapa District. 2. The suit O.S. No.22 of 2013 is filed for partition to allot 2/18 of share to petitioners and for mesne profits and for permanent injunction of A and B Schedule properties against the defendants. 3. The suit pleadings are that one late Pedda Annaiah @ Annaiah who inherited suit schedule properties from his ancestors constitutes joint family nucleus and corpus found, and managed the joint family trading business in jewelry and money lending as pawn broker. As a manager of joint trading family he declared himself in a declaration to Central Excise authority in the course of business that the joint family trading consists of himself, his wife and daughters and sons. The said Annaiah is having three daughters and two sons and elder is the Mekala Viswanadham, who is father of the 5th Defendant and younger is M.Gopinath, who is father of the plaintiffs in the suit. 4. When the trial is under process, the 5th defendant filed I.A. No.591 of 2025 under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) r/w Section 151 of C.P.C., to receive the notarized affidavit dated 27.02.1994 on the ground that notice had been given to the plaintiffs to produce sworn affidavit dated 6 27.02.1994 of Mekala Pedda Annaiah who sworn before public notary, along with other documents and the 1st defendant who was testified as D.W.-1 admitted during the course of cross examination she possess all original documents. As she has not produced the originals, the petitioner who is the 5th defendant filed registration copies of those documents and marked them and the petitioner/ D5 was examined in Chief on 31.10.2025. As the 1st defendant did not produced original documents which are in her custody and the petitioner did not get the registration copy of the affidavit dated 27.02.1994 which is un- registered and the petitioner is having Photostat copy of the of the said affidavit dated 27.02.1994 which is a material document wherein the said Mekala Pedda Annaiah sworn to an affidavit before the public notary and 27.02.1994 to the effect that the father of the 5th defendant has got purchased item No.1(1) of the schedule mentioned under registered sale deeds dated 11.03.1992 (3 in number). 5. The said I.A. No.591 of 2025, was opposed by the respondents interalia contending that a procedure is contemplated under Indian Evidence Act to mark an affidavit of dead and there is no pleading in the written statement filed by the petitioner /5th defendant about the alleged sworn notarized affidavit dated 27.02.1994 of late Mekala Pedda Annaiah and it is further stated that the petitioner/5th defendant has not explained as to why late Mekala Pedda Annaiah has 7 executed alleged notarized affidavit dated 27.02.1994, in which context he deposed before the notary public. 6. Learned trial court Judge after considering the statement made by both the counsels has dismissed the application vide order dated 04.02.2026, observing that the notarized affidavit of the death person in the absence of the original and without knowing what happened to the original and there is no reference in the pleadings of the D.5 regarding with the notarized affidavit. Under these circumstances, the said Xerox copy of notarized affidavit of the death person cannot be received that too in the absence of the original and it is not knowing what happened to the originals notarized affidavit since D.1 and plaintiffs denied the possession of the said original notarized affidavit. 7. Assailing the said order dated 04.02.2026 in I.A. No.591 of 2025, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed on the ground that the order of learned trial Court Judge is perverse and not able to exercise jurisdiction in proper perspective. Under Section 32(2) of Indian Evidence Act, when statements made by a deceased person, in written or verbal, of relevant facts when the statement was made by such person in the ordinary course of business, and in particular when it consists of any entry or memorandum made by him in books kept in the ordinary course of business, or in the discharge of professional duty; or of an acknowledgement written or signed by him of the receipt of 8 money, goods, securities or property of any kind; or of a document used in commerce written or signed by him; or of the date of a letter or other document usually dated, written or signed by him. And when such statement is made or against interest of maker When the statement is against the pecuniary or proprietary interest of the person making it, or when, if true, it would expose him or would have exposed him to a criminal prosecution or to a suit for damages is admissible in evidence. And under order VI Rule 2 that the pleading has to state material facts and not the evidence the pleading was to set material facts in evidence. Hence, prayed that the order of the learned trial Judge be set aside and to allow I.A. No.591 of 2025 to direct the trial Court to receive the document. 8. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that to determine whether the property is acquired by the father of the petitioner/5th defendant, evidence has to be adduced, not basing upon the affidavit and the material fact must be established or to be proved by producing evidence, not basing upon the notarized affidavit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the revision petition. 9. Heard Sri P. Rajasekhar, arguing counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rudra Narasimha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri. V. Maheshwar Reddy for respondent No.6 and Sri T. Balaji and Sri Kunuku Rajasekhar, for other respondents. 9 10. It is the contention of the petitioner that Mekala Pedda Annaiah who deposed before the notary expressing that an extent of Ac.0. 57 cents belongs to Gajjala Rangareddy, Lakshmidevamma Charitable Trust. And the trustee of the above said trust sold an extent of Ac.0.27 cents and Ac.0.26 cents through two separate sale deeds dated 11.3.1992 and the same was purchased by father of the 5th defendant, and the left out Ac.0.04 cents was by both the Mekala Pedda Annaiah and 5th Defendant purchased jointly. And the petitioner herein issued notice under Section 66 of the Evidence Act to produce the said affidavit dated 27.02.1994. The plaintiffs and the defendants have failed to produce the same. Hence, it is necessitated to file the present I.A. under order VIII Rule 1A(3) to receive the said notarized affidavit to prove the case that the property is not a joint family property and the said property exclusively belong to the father of 5th defendant. And mere receiving a document does not mean that the said document is admitted into evidence and relied on the judgments of the, common High Court in the case of the Setti Siddamma, Appellant v. S. Ramulu and another1, the proposition that lay is that the receipt of the documents under Rule 2 of Order XIII CPC does not amount to admitting them as evidence. Merely because a document is filed into the Court, it does not become evidence unless it is proved. 1 (2004) 5 ALD 14 10 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Marietta D’Silva v. Rudolf Clothan Lacerda and others2. The Apex Court referring the judgment in the case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder, Appellant v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and another, held that : The material facts on which the party relies for his claim are called facta probanda and they must be stated in the pleadings. But the facts or facts by means of which facta probanda (material facts) are proved and which are in the nature of facta probantia (particulars or evidence) need not be set out in the pleadings. They are not facts in issue, but only relevant facts required to be proved at the trial in order to establish the fact in issue. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder, Appellant v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and another, Respondents3, wherein it is held that onus to prove title of the property undoubtedly is on the person asserting title to the property. In his statement in Court, appellant stated that under Section 34 of the Evidence Act declares relevant the entries in books of account regularly kept in the course of business whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to enquire. When such entries are shown to have been made in the hands of a maker who is dead, the applicability of 2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 862 3 AIR 2003 SC 4548 11 clause (2) of Section 32 of the Evidence Act is attracted according to which the statement made by a dead person in the ordinary course of business and in particular when it consists of any entry or memorandum made by him in books kept in the ordinary course of business etc. is by itself relevant. 13. The Counsel for the respondents would submit that the relevant fact has to be proved at the trial in order to establish the fact in issue. And relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Bondar Singh and others v. Nihal Singh and others4 the purport of the judgment is that unstamped and unregistered sale deed can be looked into for the collateral purpose. 14. After considering the arguments presented by both the petitioner’s and the respondents’ counsel, the Court observes the following: Regarding the notarized affidavit dated 27.02.1994, which was deposed by Pedda Annaiah and submitted to the bank for loan purposes, it is not possible for the plaintiffs or Defendant 1 to produce the original document, as it remains with the bank. Consequently, the petitioner cannot issue a notice to the plaintiffs or Defendant 1 under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act to produce the said affidavit. Instead, the petitioner may, in its absence, file a photocopy of the 4 AIR 2003 SC 1905 12 affidavit by invoking Order 8, Rule 1(A)(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). 15. It is well settled law that the statement made in a sworn and notarized affidavit will not confer any right or title. Such affidavit can only be used for the purpose of confrontation. An affidavit will be submitted in particular situation or circumstance as required by necessity and that cannot be evidence. 16. And it is also well settled law, that affidavit is not an evidence within the mentioning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act. Section 3 of the Evidence Act is referred hereunder: Definition of evidence has taken under the Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the following words: Evidence means which includes all statements which the Court permits or required to be made before it by witness in relation to matters of fact under enquiry such statements are called oral evidence to all documents produced for the inspection of the Court. 17. In Sudha Devi v. M.P. Narayanan and others5, the Supreme Court held that affidavits are not included in the definition of ‘evidence’ in Section 3 of the Evidence Act and the same can be used as ‘evidence’ only if, for sufficient reasons, the Court passes an order under Order XIX Rules 1and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5 AIR 1988 SC 1381 13 18. In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra6 in has categorically held that an affidavit is not an “evidence” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and the same can be used as “evidence” only if, for sufficient reasons, the Court passes an order under Order XIX of CPC and thus, the filing of an affidavit cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal, on the basis of which it can come to a conclusion as regards a particular fact situation. And the said judgment is referred recently in Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) and Others Vs. Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) through Lrs. and Others reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 911 (see para 38). 19. Similar view has been reiterated in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani7 wherein the Apex Court held that filing of an affidavit only to his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or tribunal to come to the conclusion of the particular facts or situation. 20. Admittedly, a notarized affidavit that was deposed by Pedda Ananiah for the purpose of securing loan is in the possession of bank alone. That the petitioner cannot claim the affidavit is in the custody of either the plaintiffs or with the D1. Therefore, he is not entitle to file an application for the production of the said affidavit dated 27.02.1994 6 (2013) 4 SCC 465 7 (2002) 3 SCC 25 14 under Section 66 of the Evidence Act. Furthermore, as held by the Apex Court in the above referred cases an affidavit doesn’t constitute evidence. On the said ground, this Court is not intended to interdict the order passed by the learned Trial Judge in I.A. No. 591 of 2025. In view of the above discussion the petitioner cannot file an application under Or VIII Rule 1(A) 3 of CPC to receive the notarized affidavit dated 27.02.1994 on the ground that the respondents herein have failed to produce sworn affidavit dated 27.02.1994. 21. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 16.07.2026 Harin Whether the order is: Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 15 61 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO C.R.P.No. 1060 OF 2026 Date: 16-07-2026