Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ravu Guru Prasad Krishna Ranga Rao vs R.S.R.K. Ranga Rao College Committe on 8 September, 2022
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2075 and 2128 of 2018
COMMON ORDER:
The plaintiff before the trial Court has come up with these two revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of common order dated 18.01.2018 passed by learned II Additional District Judge, Parvatipuram in I.A.No.635 of 2017 and in I.A.No.637 of 2017 in O.S.No.43 of 2015 and in those two applications, he sought for reopening of evidence and to recall of DW.1 for further cross- examination. The respondents herein are the defendants before the learned trial Court.
2. This revision petitioner laid O.S.No.43 of 2015 for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, seeking recovery of vacant possession of the same after demolition of constructions lying therein and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 5 from changing physical features of the property either by way of making any constructions or otherwise and for future profits and for costs and for such other reliefs. The property in dispute is Ac.1.74 cents of land situated in Mallampeta Village, Bobbili Municipality, Vizianagaram District. 2
Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.2075 & 2128 of 2018 The suit was laid on the premise that the plaintiff, defendant No.9 and their father constituted a joint family and among other properties, plaint schedule property was the joint family property and by playing fraud on their deceased father, defendant No.1 obtained a registered gift deed dated 28.12.1962 and thereafter, unlawfully occupied the property in the year 2005. It is alleged in the plaint that the father of plaintiff had no exclusive right to alienate the property since it was joint family property. The plaint further discloses that on the allegation of land grabbing the plaintiff had earlier filed L.G.O.P.No.552 of 2006 as against defendant No.1 and others and after a serious contest that L.G.O.P. was dismissed on 30.08.2014. The plaint further shows that the children of the plaintiff sued the plaintiff for partition and filed O.S.No.38 of 2014. The defendants put up their contest and the trial progressed and both sides adduced their evidence and the suit was posted for hearing arguments. It was at that stage the plaintiff in the suit had come up with four interlocutory applications and on one of his applications the documents filed by him at that stage were received by the trial Court. When the plaintiff pursued I.A.No.635 of 2017 filed under Section 151 3 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.2075 & 2128 of 2018 C.P.C. seeking for reopening of the evidence, he filed I.A.No.637 of 2017 under Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. and Section 151 C.P.C. seeking to recall DW.1. In both the applications, it is stated that earlier plaintiff could not secure certified copies of revenue records and now that he secured them and he intended to cross-examine DW.1 with reference to Exs.B.1 and B.2 and that would be done with the help of latest collected certified copies of revenue records and the purpose of his further cross- examination is about a Trust alleged by the defendants since such a Trust is not in existence at all. Therefore, to elicit the truth, the trial Court should permit him to have further cross- examination of DW.1. Among respondents to those petitions, respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 filed counter together and stated that the title of donor under the gift deed and the transfer of title in favour of defendant No.1 are all not at dispute. Revenue records have nothing to do with this particular litigation to help adjudication as the dispute in the suit is about the right of that donor to execute the gift deed, the validity of the gift deed and further as to whether the donee fulfilled the conditions mentioned in the said gift deed, which was a conditional gift. In 4 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.2075 & 2128 of 2018 such circumstances, they pleaded that recalling of DW.1 for the purpose of that is stated in the petition is unnecessary.
3. After hearing learned counsel on both sides and on considering the entire material on record and after considering the legal authorities cited at the bar, the learned trial Court stated that the scope of the suit where the trial was at the verge of completion is very limited and the law contained in Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. and the precedents that are cited at the bar would indicate that they confer necessary discretion on the Court and the caution laid in the precedent is that the Court should avoid application of protracting tactics on part of either of the parties to the suit. It agreed with the contention raised by the respondents about the purport of the suit and the nature of the dispute that is available before it and in such circumstances, it held that the reasons for which the petitioner sought for recall of DW.1 were found unworthy. Therefore, it chose to dismiss both the applications.
4. Peeved about those orders, these two revision petitions came up; as against the order in I.A.No.635 of 2017 in O.S.No.43 of 2015, C.R.P.No.2075 of 2018 and as against the order in I.A.No.637 of 2017 in O.S.No.43 of 2015, 5 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.2075 & 2128 of 2018 C.R.P.No.2128 of 2018 came to be filed. Since the revisions are intimately connected and are against common order passed by the trial Court, both these revisions are disposed of together.
5. The point that falls for consideration is:
"Did the trial Court fail to exercise jurisdiction vested with it in the manner that is required by law and whether the impugned orders suffer from any infirmity?
6. Point:
The grounds urged in the revisions are the points that are argued by learned counsel for revision petitioner. It is stated that further cross-examination is required to elicit truth about Trust to which DW.1 is Chairman. The trial Court erroneously considered the scope of the suit and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested with it under Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C.
7. Learned counsel for respondents submits that about the Trust and its Chairman there has been no need for any decision considering the purport of the suit and the trial Court appropriately exercised its discretion and the learned counsel supported the impugned orders.
6
Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.2075 & 2128 of 2018
8. On consideration of the entire material on record and the arguments and the refutations on both sides, it is to be stated that the suit that was filed in the year 2015 was prosecuted for all these years and to the satisfaction of both sides, oral and documentary evidence was collected and stored by the trial Court and when it was about to hear the arguments on both sides, the plaintiff had come up with the prayers for reopening and recall. A serious fight earlier took place between the parties in L.G.O.P.No.552 of 2006 and that went on till August, 2014 and plaintiff found that his case set up against adversaries was found incorrect. The fact that from 2006 till this day plaintiff has been litigating before the Courts by itself demonstrates the full knowledge of the facts and documents for the plaintiff. The entire suit stands on a premise whether the property in dispute belongs to joint family and if so, whether the kartha of joint family by himself, and without the participation of other sharers could alienate the property by way of a gift and whether a gift of the year 1962 is amenable for challenge at this length of time and whether the conditions laid down in the gift were fulfilled and complied with by the donee or not? Therefore, whether the defendants have a Trust or whether there was no Trust etc., 7 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.2075 & 2128 of 2018 facts are not very germane to the litigation. The observations of the learned trial Court that the material before him completely indicated the admission of title and the passage of it are based on facts and sound reasons. The need for further cross- examination indicated by this revision petitioner do not logically convince a Court of law and therefore, they were properly nagatived by the trial Court and this Court does not find any infirmity in that order or any failure of exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court. Therefore, there is no merit in these two revisions. Point is answered against the revision petitioner.
9. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 08.09.2022 Ivd 8 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.Nos.2075 & 2128 of 2018 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2075 and 2128 of 2018 Date: 08.09.2022 Ivd