CIVIL APPEAL 507 of 2025 on 1 December 2004

ORDER:

ThisrevisionpetitionwasfiledunderArticle227oftheConstitution of India against the order dated 27.12.2024,[dismissing]I.A.No.774 of 2024 in O.S.No.397 of 2016 on the file[of][ the][ Court][ of]Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, filed under[Order][ XVI,][ Rule][ 1(3)]and Section 151 C.P.C. to summon the following persons:

2. Thepetitionersfiledthesuitagainsttherespondentfordeclaration of the title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule propertiesi.e., 59 cents of land in Survey No.55/2 and 0.4139[cents][ of][ land]inSurvey No.55/1 of Chinna Tekur Village, Kallur Mandal,[Kurnool][ District]after cancelling the sale deed bearing No. 13005/2004[dated][ 01.12.2004]and send a copy of the decree to the Sub-Registrar,Kurnool with adirection to make entry of the cancelled document in[the][ concerned]register.declaration of the title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule propertiesi.e., 59 cents of land in Survey No.55/2 and 0.4139[cents][ of][ land]inSurvey No.55/1 of Chinna Tekur Village, Kallur Mandal,[Kurnool][ District]after cancelling the sale deed bearing No. 13005/2004[dated][ 01.12.2004]and send a copy of the decree to the Sub-Registrar,Kurnool with adirection to make entry of the cancelled document in[the][ concerned]register.

3. The petitioners filed the above saidpetition claimingthattherespondent filed Ex. B1 form 1-B & B2 adangal for the[fasli][ year][ 1430][ for]SurveyNo.55/1duringthe courseof cross-examinationofthe1Stpetitioner / 1®^ plaintiff and after verifying the[revenue][ records,][ he][ had]come to know that there was no Khata No. 1064in the[name][ of][ the]respondent and there was no entry of the name of the[respondent][ in][ the]respondent filed Ex. B1 form 1-B & B2 adangal for the[fasli][ year][ 1430][ for]SurveyNo.55/1duringthe courseof cross-examinationofthe1Stpetitioner / 1®^ plaintiff and after verifying the[revenue][ records,][ he][ had]come to know that there was no Khata No. 1064in the[name][ of][ the]respondent and there was no entry of the name of the[respondent][ in][ the]

adangal for the fasli year 1430 in the office of the Tahsildar and so theywere secured by the respondent through manipulation, the petitionersfurther stated that the adangals for previous and subsequent fasli yearsof the same land shows the name of thepetitioner even after thealleged transaction of sale in the year 2004. Therefore, the petitionersstated thatitisnecessaryto summonthe Tahsildar. Theyfurthercontended that the value of the property as on 01.12.2004 i.e., date ofregistered sale deed sought to be cancelled was Rs.7,03,000/-,[but the]registered sale deed shows value of the property of[0.54]centsatRs.50,000/- by manipulation and therefore,it is necessary[to][ summon]the Sub-Registrar.

4. The respondent reported no counter. However, the petition[was]dismissed by the trial Court observing that P.W.1/ 4*^ plaintiff in hiscross-examination admitted about Ex.BI and B2 and therefore, theycannot be disputed and further that there is no evidence[to][ show][ that]there is no Khata No. 1064 in the name of the respondent[and][ also][ to]show that there is no entry in the name of the respondent in the adangalfor the fasli year 1430in the office of the Tahsildar.[The]trialCourtfurther held thatif at all the contention of the petitioners is true, theyshould file some revenue records to disprove Ex.BI and B2, but merestatement that there is no Khata No. 1064 or no entry[on][ the][ name][ of][ the]respondent would not help their case. It is also observed[that][ there][ is][ no]evidence to show that the name of the 1®^ petitioner[was][ reflected][ in][ the]revenuerecordevenafterthesaletransactionandnovaluationcertificate was filed by the petitioners to show the higher value of theproperty as mentioned on the sale deed.dismissed by the trial Court observing that P.W.1/ 4*^ plaintiff in hiscross-examination admitted about Ex.BI and B2 and therefore, theycannot be disputed and further that there is no evidence[to][ show][ that]there is no Khata No. 1064 in the name of the respondent[and][ also][ to]show that there is no entry in the name of the respondent in the adangalfor the fasli year 1430in the office of the Tahsildar.[The]trialCourtfurther held thatif at all the contention of the petitioners is true, theyshould file some revenue records to disprove Ex.BI and B2, but merestatement that there is no Khata No. 1064 or no entry[on][ the][ name][ of][ the]respondent would not help their case. It is also observed[that][ there][ is][ no]evidence to show that the name of the 1®^ petitioner[was][ reflected][ in][ the]revenuerecordevenafterthesaletransactionandnovaluationcertificate was filed by the petitioners to show the higher value of theproperty as mentioned on the sale deed.

5. Aggrieved by the order this revision petition was filed.

6. Insofar as the petition to summon the Tahsildar is concerned, thelearned counsel for the petitioners contended that unless the pd^iaallearned counsel for the petitioners contended that unless the pd^iaal

record is summoned, the correctness of the adangal produced beforethe Court in evidence could not be decided as they were manipulated.Though the transaction in dispute relates to the year 2004, the name ofthe vendors continued to remainin the revenue records, but suddenlytheentry waschangedinthe copyof theadangalfiledbytherespondent without indicating as to how the entry in the adangal waschanged, but the entry for the subsequent year shows again the nameof the vendors and therefore, it is necessary to summon[the][ witness][ and]mere filing of the certified copies would not help to prove the truth.Hefurther submittedthatinfact, the respondent reported nocounter,however the trial Court dismissed the petition, instead of summoningthe witness to get the best evidence.

7. The learned counsel for the 1®* respondent opposed the petitionsubmitting that the petitioners have to prove their[own][ case][ and][ cannot]rely on the weakness of the case of the other side and therefore, thereis no need to summon the witness.submitting that the petitioners have to prove their[own][ case][ and][ cannot]rely on the weakness of the case of the other side and therefore, thereis no need to summon the witness.

8. Since the genuineness of the record relating to adangals[can][ be]examined by the trial Court only with reference to the original recordrelating to the record filed before the Court,it is necessary to summonthe concernedofficial.Moreover,in addition thereto, the petitionerssought the same record relatingto other faslis andalso Form1-Bregister and to give evidence. As it is heavy record spreading from theyear 2004 to till date as per the relief sought for production of adangalregisters, while allowing the relief for production of the record,it can belimited to the period from 2004 to the date of filing of the suit[ i.e.,] theyear 2016.examined by the trial Court only with reference to the original recordrelating to the record filed before the Court,it is necessary to summonthe concernedofficial.Moreover,in addition thereto, the petitionerssought the same record relatingto other faslis andalso Form1-Bregister and to give evidence. As it is heavy record spreading from theyear 2004 to till date as per the relief sought for production of adangalregisters, while allowing the relief for production of the record,it can belimited to the period from 2004 to the date of filing of the suit[ i.e.,] theyear 2016.

9. The relief with regard to production of form 1-B register[relevant]to the suit schedule property shall also be produced[and][ the][ witness]i.e., the Tahsildar, Kallur Mandal, Kallur shall also give evidence.Afterto the suit schedule property shall also be produced[and][ the][ witness]i.e., the Tahsildar, Kallur Mandal, Kallur shall also give evidence.After After •/

giving evidence,if any register is marked in evidence, the petitionersshall apply for certified copy of such documents marked and substitutethe same for the original and the trial Court shall forthwith return theoriginal registers to the Tahsildar.

10. Insofar as the record sought to be produced by the Sub-Registrar,Kallur and giving evidence is concerned, the purpose is to establish thatthe document was registered for value for less than the then existingmarket value as per the Registrar’s office.Since,it is to be clarified bytheSub-Registrarconcernedastohowthesaiddocumentwasregistered for value less than the then market value of the property, it isnecessaryto summon the witness with the relevant record. As such,this petition also needs to be allowed.Kallur and giving evidence is concerned, the purpose is to establish thatthe document was registered for value for less than the then existingmarket value as per the Registrar’s office.Since,it is to be clarified bytheSub-Registrarconcernedastohowthesaiddocumentwasregistered for value less than the then market value of the property, it isnecessaryto summon the witness with the relevant record. As such,this petition also needs to be allowed.

11. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed by setting asidetheimpugnedorderdated27.12.2024inI.A.No.774of2024inO.S.No.397 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Principal[Senior][ Civil]Judge, Kurnool. There shall be no order as to costs.theimpugnedorderdated27.12.2024inI.A.No.774of2024inO.S.No.397 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Principal[Senior][ Civil]Judge, Kurnool. There shall be no order as to costs.

Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand[vacated.]

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand[closed.]

To,

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- M SRINIVASASSISTANT REGISTRARSECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, Kunrool District.

2. OneCCto SRI. ANUMULA KARTHIK REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to SRI. VARUN BYREDDY Advocate [OPUC]

4. Three CD Copies

Pmg

nm

HIGH COURT

DATED:05/05/2025

ORDERCRP.No.507 of 2025

ALLOWING THE CRP