Telangana High Court
Syeda Bushra Sultana, , Bader vs Syeda Kausar Sultana on 7 July, 2023
Author: P.Naveen Rao
Bench: P.Naveen Rao
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1595, 1597 & 1598 of 2023
Date: 07.07.2023
CRP No.1595 of 2023:
Between:
Syeda Bushra Sultana @ Bader,
d/o. late Mir Jahangir Ali,
Aged about 46 years, occu:Govt Employee,
Education Department, R/o.H.No.20-5-511/1,
Shakkergunj, Shah Ali Banda, Hyderabad
and 4 others.
(petitioners 2 to 5 are not necessary parties)
.....Petitioners/defendants/
Revision petitioners
and
Syeda Kausar Sultana, w/o. Mr. Mohd. Mustaq Ali,
Aged about 48 years, occu: Household,
r/o.H.No.22-8-280, Nayapul Corner, Yousuf Bazar,
Hyderabad and 12 others.
(respondents 2 to 13 are not necessary parties).
.....Respondents/plaintiff/
Respondents
The Court made the following:
2
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1595, 1597 & 1598 of 2023
COMMON ORDER:
The plaintiff filed O.S.No.128 of 2018 praying to grant decree for partition and separate possession of the schedules 'A' to 'D' properties in the XXXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In the said suit plaintiff filed I.A.No.766 of 2022 praying to issue summons to Commissioner of Income Tax seeking for Income Tax returns of 1st defendant with assessment for the period 2006 to 2021. I.A.No.767 of 2022 is filed praying to issue summons to District Educational Officer seeking to produce Asset Declaration Forms together with Form-16 of 1st defendant for the period from 2006 to 2021. I.A.No.1268 of 2022 is filed praying to receive documents which are the applications filed by the plaintiff, his son and agent to the employer of 1st defendant under Right to Information Act. Vide Orders dated 09.03.2023 the trial Court granted reliefs prayed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby these revision petitions are filed by defendants 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they are arrayed in the suit.
3
2. I have heard learned counsel Sri Habeeb Jaffar Bin Hasan for the petitioners/defendants and the learned counsel Sri G.M.Mohuddin for the respondent/plaintiff.
3. Learned counsel for defendants contended that the plaintiff has not specified what steps were taken in procuring the said public documents. Further, the plaintiff has not explained the purpose for summoning the Income Tax returns and records from the District Educational Officer and how they are useful for the Court in the adjudication of the present suit.
4. He would submit that with respect to the income tax returns, as she is a school teacher in Government service, she derives her income through her salaries which is taxable at source. It is further stated that she has not submitted the Asset Declaration Forms.
5. It is further contended that before filing the impugned applications for summoning of documents from Government Officials, the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory provision in Rule 129 (3) of A.P.Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1902. That as per the said Rules, the plaintiff is required to prove that she has exhausted all the remedies to 4 obtain copies of the Income Tax Returns and Asset Declaration Forms from the respective Government Departments.
6. It is further submitted that the Court below has failed to take notice that plaintiff has not filed applications under the Right to Information Act, but a third party has filed such applications for seeking information from the 1st defendant's employer and is not valid. The Court below failed to note that there is no provision shown by plaintiff as to how a third party can file petitions under Right to Information Act and the same would not amount to complying the mandatory provision of Rule 129 of Civil Rules of Practice.
7. It is further contended that the plaintiff has filed earlier O.S.No.1133 of 2018 on the file of XVIII Senior Civil Judge, where in paragraph no.8 she has categorically stated that she is not in a sound state of mind.
8. It is further contended that 1st defendant is not deriving any income from schedules 'A', 'C' and 'D' properties. It is submitted that as far schedule 'A' is concerned, it is an open plot with a compound wall. With respect to schedule 'C' property, it is submitted that the plaintiff herself is receiving rents. With respect to schedule 'D' property, it is submitted that 5 respondent no.6 is carrying on firewood business on the premises.
9. The learned counsel for the 1st defendant relied on Doni Ushaiah v. Thota Bhooma Reddy and others1.
10. Learned counsel for plaintiff contended that 1st defendant has specifically pleaded in the common written statement filed by her and defendants 3 to 6 dated 11.07.2018 that the suit schedules 'A', 'C' and 'D' properties were purchased by her or gifted or released to her by her brothers and sisters. The relevant paragraphs of the written statement are paragraph nos.2 and 5.
11. He would further submit that 1st defendant being a Government School Teacher, is supposed to disclose her assets and liabilities to the employer and file periodic statements. Further, if what is contended by the 1st defendant is true that she is the owner and possessor of schedules 'A', 'C' and 'D' properties, the same should ordinarily be reflected in her Income Tax Returns and in the Asset Declaration Forms filed by her.
1 2022 (4) ALD 337 (TS) 6
12. It is therefore contended that to ascertain the veracities of the claim of 1st defendant in her written statement, these documents have to be summoned. Summoning these documents will ensure proper adjudication of the suit and justice would be rendered. It is thus contended that having regard to the controversy in the suit, the trial Court has rightly passed orders in the interlocutory applications.
13. The suit is filed to grant decree of partition and separate possession of schedules 'A' to 'D' properties. Opposing the claim, the 1st defendant asserted that the properties in schedules 'A', 'C' and 'D' are own properties and, therefore, not amenable for partition. Thus, the nature of ownership of schedules 'A', 'C' and 'D' properties is crucial to decide the claim of plaintiff. To controvert the stand of 1st defendant and to establish her claim that all the suit schedule properties are amenable for partition the plaintiff prayed the trial Court to summon the records from the Income Tax Department and 1st defendant employer. According to plaintiff, she has made all efforts to secure the said documents, but was unsuccessful whereas they are crucial to adjudicate the lis. In I.A.No.1269 of 2022, the plaintiff sought to place before the trial Court the applications filed under the Right to Information Act. 7
14. The documents summoned are public documents. At the stage of summoning the documents, trial Court need not go into their relevancy and admissibility. Summoning the documents is subject to their relevancy and admissibility which course will be undertaken when marking the documents. By mere summoning the documents, no prejudice will be caused to 1st defendant and will help in fair and proper adjudication of the dispute in the suit. By receiving the documents sought to be filed by the plaintiff in I.A.No.1268 of 2022, no prejudice would be caused to the 1st defendant. On the contrary, the preservation of documents subject to their relevancy and admission will be useful for adjudication of the dispute in the suit.
15. The trial Court is competent to summon any record which is necessary for proper adjudication of a lis pending before the Court and to reach to the bottom of truth and to arrive at correct conclusion on the inter se dispute. Having regard to the dispute in the suit and rival claims, I do not see any error committed by the trial Court in summoning the records from the Income Tax Department and from the Education Department. Further, it is also necessary to look into the efforts made by the plaintiff to secure information from Public authorities to know the bona fides of the plaintiff. 8
16. In Doni Ushaiah (supra), learned single Judge of this Court reviewed provision in Rule 129 of Civil Rules of Practice, Order XVI Rules 1 to 5 of CPC and the precedent decisions. On thorough analysis learned single Judge summed up the mandatory conditions to summon the official records as under:
"6B. Thus, for the purpose of summoning a Public Officer, compliance of the following conditions are mandatory:
(a) Document / documents the production of which is required, shall be set out in the affidavit;
(b) Relevancy of the document / documents shall be explained in the affidavit.
(c) In cases where the production of a certified copy would answer the purpose, whether application was made to the proper officer and the result of such application shall also be indicated in the affidavit.
6C. It is also relevant to note that under Sub- Rule (3) of Rule - 129 of the CRP, no Court shall issue summons unless it considers the production of the original document is necessary or is satisfied that the application for a certified copy has been duly made and has not been granted."
17. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case, I see no error committed by the trial Court and the Civil Revision Petitions fail. They are accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 07.07.2023 Kkm 9 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO C.R.P.NOs.1595, 1597 & 1598 of 2023 Date: 07.07.2023 kkm