Telangana High Court
Sri Thakur Yogendher Singh vs Yvonne Douglas Foundation 4 Others on 20 September, 2022
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
C.R.P.Nos.3076, 3114, & 3251 OF 2015
ORDER:
1. C.R.P.No.3076 of 2015 is directed against the order dated 11.06.2015 passed in I.A.No.465 of 2015 in O.S.No.980 of 2008 dated 11.06.2015 whereby the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs herein under Order 11 Rules 12, 14 and 18 seeking to produce certain documents was allowed.
2. C.R.P.No.3114 of 2015 is filed against the order dated 11.06.2015 passed in I.A.No.456 of 2015 in O.S.No.979 of 2008 dated 11.06.2015 whereby the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs herein under Order 11 Rules 12, 14 and 18 seeking to produce certain documents was allowed.
3 C.R.P.No.3251 of 2015 is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 11.06.2015 passed in I.A.No.467 of 2015 in O.S.No.981 of 2008 dated 11.06.2015 whereby the application filed by the respondents-plaintiffs herein under Order 11 Rules 12, 14 and 18 seeking to produce bank statement of account and certain other documents was allowed.
4. Since the prayer in all the suits and the relief sought in the interlocutory applications are one and the same except the Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, the revisions petitions are amenable for disposal by way of this common order.
2 PSS,J CRP No.3114_3076_3215 of 2015
5. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.
6. The petitioner herein is the first defendant in the above suits and the respondents are the plaintiffs.
7. The plaintiffs filed three different suits against the defendants seeking cancellation of Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney and perpetual injunction. During the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed three applications in three suits seeking production of certain documents. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both the counsel, allowed the applications. Aggrieved by the same, the first defendant in the suits preferred these revisions.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these revisions would contend that the plaintiffs filed suits in collusion with the second defendant to create litigation over the property. Learned counsel would further assert that the second respondent and second defendant in O.S.No.980 of 2008 are the real brothers but the second respondent has never taken any criminal action against him for the illegal acts committed by him as alleged by the second defendant. Learned counsel would also argue that the second defendant executed the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on behalf of plaintiffs through an authorization letter dated 17.05.2007 and as such the said letter is very much in their possession but not in his 3 PSS,J CRP No.3114_3076_3215 of 2015 possession. Learned counsel would also assert that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the second defendant executed and transferred some part of extent of the property from and out of the total extent of 4800 square yards, the question of handing over all the original title deeds and authorization letter to him does not arise till the completion of the sale transaction. Learned counsel would also contend that the bank account statement and income tax returns and other documents were misplaced in his office and that the plaintiffs never taken plea in the suit that the said authorization letter is in the custody of the first defendant and that the authorization letter was executed in favour of the second plaintiff and as such the plaintiffs are at liberty to seek relief against him and thus requested the court to dismiss the order of the trial Court.
9. The suits were filed by Yvonne Douglas Foundation against the defendants for cancellation of sale deeds dated 19.09.2007 and 12.03.2008 since they are illegal and fraudulent transactions and also for perpetual injunction. During the pendency of the suits, the plaintiffs filed applications seeking production of documents by the first defendant. Therein, the plaintiffs pointed out that in the written statement of the first defendant he claimed that he paid substantial amounts by way of sale consideration to the second defendant and he was authorized by the plaintiffs to sell the suit schedule property, as such requested the Court to direct him to produce the said documents under Order 11 C.P.C. In the counter filed by the first defendant he 4 PSS,J CRP No.3114_3076_3215 of 2015 stated that the petition is not maintainable as it is filed after five years with a mala fide intention. He further stated that he is at liberty to produce his documentary evidence but, the plaintiffs cannot seek direction from the Court to produce the three documents from him and that he can produce the documents at the time of defence evidence which are available with him to prove his contentions. He also stated in his counter that he already submitted that they are mis- placed in their office situated at Aditya Nagar and thus he is unable to produce the same even then and that the plaintiffs filed these applications with the same relief in all the suits and they are filing petitions one after other only to prolong the litigation and thus requested to dismiss the same.
10. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides, observed that the trial has already commenced, the first defendant at one point of time stated that the documents are mis-placed in his offence and at other point of time he stated that he will file the same at the time of his evidence. When both the parties are relying upon the documents they should file the same before framing of issues to resolve the real issues before the Court. The first defendant has not accepted to file the documents after framing of the issues without taking leave of the Court. The very fact that the first defendant stated that he will file the documents at the time of evidence would go to show that he has some documents, and therefore, no prejudice would be caused if he is directed to produce the same and if at all he is not 5 PSS,J CRP No.3114_3076_3215 of 2015 having any documents, he can file a memo to that extent and accordingly allowed the applications.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the first defendant relied upon a citation reported in P.MEHERUNISSA BEGUM V/s. P.NOORUNISSA1 holding to the effect that the Court can exercise its power to direct the party to produce documents which are in their custody, but it is subject to the condition precedent that the party must be in possession of the said document. The Court has to conduct a prima facie enquiry and then arrive at a finding as to whether the party is in possession of the document or not.
12. The first defendant mainly contended that the second plaintiff- Pastor K.Sudarshan Joseph and second defendant-Rock David Komanapalli are sons of late Reverend Isaac. The third plaintiff-Ruth Komanapalli is the wife of the fourth plaintiff-James Komanapalli and that the fourth plaintiff is also another son of first plaintiff along with others colluded and filed suits against the defendants though he purchased the property after payment of entire sale consideration of Rs.17,60,000/- vide two cheques and the amount was encashed in the society account. The first defendant clearly stated that the authorization letter dated 17.05.2007 to register the sale deed is given by the second defendant at the instance of other plaintiffs and it is 1 2002 (3) ALT 12 6 PSS,J CRP No.3114_3076_3215 of 2015 available with them i.e., with the second defendant and as such the said documents can be obtained from the second defendant.
13. With regard to bank statements, learned counsel for the petitioner-first defendant would submit that if the bank issues the said statements, the first defendant is prepared to file the same. Therefore, the first defendant is at liberty to take necessary steps to obtain the said statement from the bank and file before the Court.
14. In so far as Income Tax Returns and assessment orders of the first defendant for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, learned counsel for the petitioner-first defendant would submit that they are confidential documents, and therefore, the Court cannot direct him to produce the same. As per Section 54 of the Income Tax Act even the income tax officers cannot direct the litigants to produce the certified copies of the returns, for which learned counsel also relied upon a case law in NAGAMMAI ACHI V/s. ALAMELU ACHI 2 in which it is held that an Order 11 Rule 14 of C.P.C refusing to direct the plaintiff to produce certain documents declared to be confidential is perfectly valid and correct. But in the cases on hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the said statement is per curiam and cannot be looked into. In a citation reported in P.MEHARUNNISSA BEGUM V/s. P.NOORUNNISSA BEGUM3 it was specifically held that before directing the party to produce the 2 AIR 1957 MADRAS 401 3 2002 (3) ALT 12 7 PSS,J CRP No.3114_3076_3215 of 2015 documents it is for the Court to make prima-facie enquiry regarding the possession of the documents with the party. The first defendant has not specifically denied the possession of the said documents with him and in fact the said document and income tax returns are filed by him for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The first defendant simply stated that at one point of time that they were mis-placed in the office and again stated that they are available with him and he will file the same during his evidence. Admittedly, the first defendant has mentioned about the document in his written statement. Even the trial Court observed that unless both the parties file the documents along with the pleadings, it is difficult for it to frame the issues to resolve the real dispute between the parties.
15. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that as the plaintiffs suits before the trial Court, it is for them to adduce best evidence available as per Section 106 of the Evident Act and accordingly they filed the present applications before the Court for the said direction to the first defendant for production of documents required for the suits and the learned counsel him himself interpreted the provision whatever evidence available with him, he has to produce before the Court to establish his case under the guise of producing best evidence. The plaintiffs cannot approach the Court for direction to the first defendant to produce documents available with him. Therefore, his argument is not tenable.
8 PSS,J CRP No.3114_3076_3215 of 2015
16. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to allow the revision petitions partly and to direct the first defendant to produce bank statement and his income tax returns for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and since the original letter dated 17.05.2007 is not available with him, he need not produce the same.
17. In the result, the revision petitions are partly allowed. In consequence, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ SMT.P.SREE SUDHA,J DATE:20.09.2022 VRKS