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 1^st respondent is their son.  The 2^nd respondent is said to be wife of 1^st respondent, respondents 3 and 4 are said to be brothers and respondents 5 and 6 are nieces of the 2^nd 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