Boundary recitals of a document when useful - one Mr.Polinaidu has executed two documents and that in those documents, the petitioners were shown as the owners of neighbouring land. If that is true, the recitals, it will hardly be of any use to the petitioners. It is only when one of the parties to the suit has executed the document and made certain recitals, that other party can reply upon them to prove his case. The document is executed by a person who is not a party to the suit and the recitals therein would hardly be of any relevance to the suit. Further placing reliance upon the said recitals or contents will lead to several complications. The trial Court has taken correct view of the matter and this court is not inclined to interfere with the orders under revision.


HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1050,1066,1086 AND 1087 of 2013


COMMON ORDER

All the four revisions are filed by the petitioners herein.  Hence, they are disposed through a common order.
    
The petitioners filed O.S.No.274 of 2006 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, against the respondents for the relief of Perpetual Injunction in respect of two items of property , aggregate to Ac.05-17 cents of land.  The petitioners are spouses, the 1st respondent is their son.  The 2nd respondent is said to be wife of 1st respondent, respondents 3 and 4 are said to be brothers and respondents 5 and 6 are nieces of the 2nd respondent.  The recording of evidence in the suit was concluded.  At the stage of arguments, the petitioners filed four applications namely I.A.No.2 of 2013 with a prayer to reopen the suit, I.A.No.3 of 2013 with a prayer to recall Pw.1, I.A.No.4 of 2013 for receiving documents and I.A.No.5 of 2013 for issuance of summons to one K.Polinaidu.  The basis was that  Polinaidu executed two documents on 19-11-2012, 05-12-2012 in respect of properties in the neighbourhood, and in those documents, the petitioners were shown as owners of the land in the neighbourhood.  The applications were opposed by the respondents.  The trial Court dismissed the applications through separate orders dated 30-01-2013.  Hence, these four revisions.

Sri A.Subash Chandra Bose, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the necessity to file the applications, referred to above, has arisen on account of the fact that in the recent past one Mr.Naidu has executed two documents and recitals therein, particularly, the description of the boundaries would throw light upon the question of possession over the suit schedule property.

 The petitioners, on one hand, and the respondents, on the other hand, already adduced evidence to prove their respective cases.  In a suit for perpetual Injunction, the burden squarely rests upon the plaintiff to prove the possession over the property as on the date of filing of the suit.  The petitioners have already adduced evidence in that behalf.

The only basis for filing of the present set of applications is that 
one Mr.Polinaidu has executed two documents and that in those documents, the petitioners were shown as the owners of neighbouring land. 
 If that is true, the recitals, it will hardly be of any use to the petitioners. 
 It is only when one of the parties to the suit has executed the document and made certain recitals, that other party can reply upon them to prove his case.  
The document is executed by a person who is not a party to the suit and the recitals therein would hardly be of any relevance to the suit.  
Further placing reliance upon the said recitals or contents will lead to several complications.  The trial Court has taken correct view of the matter and this court is not inclined to interfere with the orders under revision.
                                        
Hence, these Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.
 The miscellaneous petition filed in these revision petitions shall stand disposed of. 

____________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J   

Dt:14-03-2013

nvl/gj

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.