The High Court · 2025

13. Yedupalhi Bharathi, Wo.Venkata Swamy Age.43 years, R/o H No.4-2-151l29, Teachers Cotony, Sririivasa'Nagr,, and District. )cc. Housewife, Khammam Town

14. Devarapu Lqxamma, W/o.Narasimha Rao Aoe_3g year:;, Ryo. Guruvajipeta village, Kanigiri tr/andal, prikasaiir bir;r '15. Nuthangi Venkata Narasaiah, S/o.Ramanavudu Aoe.69 \ Ryo.H.No.2-3, R/o.Ashok Nagar, H/o.VempLOu, CIp. Vz i Nellore District. Occ. Housewife. 'ict. ears, Occ. Agrl., kuntapadu Mandal,

16. Puwadi Venkateswarlu, S/o.pedda Laxmaiah Age.44 y,: Rl/o.Pamuru Village, Post and Town and lvlandai] praka;

17. Pasupuleti Brahmaiah, S/o.pedda Tirupathataiah Aoe.2l Ertapadu Village and post, peddacharl'apalli Mandai, pr: 18 Nelluri 9ubhadra, Wo. Kondaiah Age.40 years. Occ.Ho.r ?:1511264, Srinivasa Nagar, Khamriam (added' as pei t I NO.34712015. dt 09.10 2b15). rrs, Occ. Business, Lm District. years, Rl/o.Pedda :asam District. ;ewife, Rl/o.H.No.4- r orders passed in lA

19. Maddineni Venkataramaiah, S/o.Late Naraiah Age.75 yei Rl/o.Asghok Nagar village, Varikuntapadu tvtanO jt, Netto r Respondents I to 18 are not necessbry parties to this C \ rs, Occ.Agriculture, District. I Revision Petition) ...Respondents/Respondents 1 to ,19/Defendants 1 to 3,5 t r 18 and 20/Plaintiff lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition- under section 151 of cpc praying that i, the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of flre pLtition, the ligh court may oe pleased to grant stay of aI further proceedings in o.s.No.4.,tio23 on the fiie of the I Additional District Judge, at Khammam pursuant to ,r -der, dt.21 .02.2024 rendered in lA No.262l2023 in oS No.41l2oi 3 pendirig r1 ;posar of the civir Revision Petition. t THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION N os. 1454 and 1464 of2024 COMMON ORDER Since these Civil Revision Petitions revolve around a common issue, they were heard together

2. C.R.P. No. 1454 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 21 02.2021 in I A No 262 of 2023 in O S. No. 4l of 2013 filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') passed by the I Additional District Judge, at Khammam (for short 'the Trial Court')

3. C.R P. No l464 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the order dated

21.02.2024 in LA No.308 of 2023 in O.S. No. 60 of 2017 filed under Order XVI Rule 6 ol the Code passed by the I Additional District Judge, at Khammam

4. The revision petitioners in CRP No.l454 of 2024 are the a defendant Nos. 4 & 19 in the suit filed vide OS No 41 ol 2013; and revision petitioner in CRP No. 1464 of 2024 is the plaintiff in suit filed vide O.S No.60 of 2017 2 i

5. A civil suit videO.S. No- 4l of20l3 is filed by th : respondent No.l9 herein for partition and separate possession as p rintiff' 6. The revision petitioner herein filed the suit f'r pertnanent inlunction vttle O.S. No 60 of 201'1 (old O S No ;8 of 2015) under Order VII Rule 7 arrd2 tlw Section 26 of CPC T.Itisthecaseofthepetitioners/petitionerinbotl-heRevision petitions that a registered gift settlernent deed vide c lctttnent t.to 279gl1ggg dt. 04'11.t99 was execttted in his favotrr, tlrat due the error in the original gift deed i.e Document No 2T )9/1999' the executantshadjointlyexecutedaRectifrcatitlrlDeeddated 08.03.2021 correcting the boundaries; that the rriginal gift settlement deed executed in his favour got rnisll aced during shifting of his house; tl-rat the attestels to the afores Lid gift deed alsolraddeceasedlongback,thathehadobtainedrortifiedcopy of the same and filed the sarne into court; and that he had mentioned the said fact in his chief evidence affidar' it

8. It is the further case of the petitioners / petitioner fhat one Sri. N. Venakata Narasaiah i.e. defendar.rt No t6, who is ll s son of Late Nutangi Ratnanayttdu (Kartha) and Sri N Venkate; vara Rao i e' ,tt defendant No.9, who is the son of Nutangi Narayana and grandson of Late Nutangi Ramanayudu (Kartha), had denied the execution of the gift settlernent deed in his favour; that during his cross- examination in O.S. No.4l of 2013, as it was suggested that the cerlihed copy of the original gift deed filed by him does not have signatures of the executants, and that the Rectification deed dt

08.03 2021 was not executed by the donors nor were they present at the Joint Sub-Registrar office, Kanigiri, he had filed the underlying interlocutory applications vide I.A. Nos. 302 & 308 of 2023 in the suit filed by hirn vide O S No 60 of 2017, and vide I.A. No 262 of 2023 in O S. No. 41 of 2013, to direct Joint Sub- Registrar, Kanigiri, PSR Nellore, to produce the register of registration Book No l pertaining to doc. No. 2799 of 2019 and doc, No. 2203 of 2021, as the same contains the thurnb impression of the executants in respect of the original gift deed for being compared with signatures on the rectrfication deed and to give evidence

9. The revision petitioners / petitioner further contended that the respondent herein and plaintiff in O.S. No 4l of 2013, during his 4 cross examination, had wrongly suggested to him thiLt the tobacco barren, registered in the name of plaintiff, was sotr by him to Gogula Vengala Reddy in 2001, without he havrng i ny authority to alienate the said tobacco baren to any other pafty l0.Hence, for the aforesaid reasons he had filed th: underlying interlocutory applications in both the suits filed by hrr and against him.

11. Interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 262 of 023 is filed seeking to pass direction as tnder: the Joinr registrar, Kanigiri town, Nellore district a) to produce the register containing book of thrLr and signatures maintained while registering I signatures, thumb impressions of the executants rb impressions le documents, i.e donors and donee vide gift settlement deed dated 04 1 1. I 9! ( b) to produce the rectification olgift settlement ct defendant No. 9 & 16 vicle dated 08 03.2021. rignatures, thumb impressions of donors c< defendant No.9, l6 and 4, in the said register, ar :d executed by containing the :ee, by name t c) to give evidence in O.S No 41 ol20l3 1t Superintendent of Tobaco Board, D.C. Pa[[i, Nellore ci trict seeking to produce: a) register maintained by the office of Superinter r board DC Palli, with regard to Tobacco brr which stands in the name of plaintilf in the suit . ent of Tobacco en No. 29002 5 b) application hled by rhe plaintiff and his transferee by name Gogula Vengalareddy lor change the name of Gogula Vengatareddy in the records ofTobacco board. l2.Interlocutory application vide t.A. No 308 of 2023 in O.S No 60 of2017 is filed seeking to pass direction as under: the Joint sub-registrar, Kanigiri town, Nellore district a) to produce the register containing book of thumb impressions and signatures maintained while registering the documents, signatures, thumb impressions ofthe executants i.e. donors and donee vide gift settlement deed dated 04. I I 1999. b) to produce the rectihcation of gift settlement deed executed by defendant No. 9 & L6 victe dated 08.03.2021 , Book No. I pertaining to document No 279912019 and document No.220312021 containing the signatures, thumb impressions of donors donee, by name defendant No.9, i6 and 4, in the said register, and c) to give evidence in O.S No.60 of 2017 The said application were filed on the giound that all the said documents are necessary and relevant for consideration and for effective adjudication of matter

13.The trial'Court dismissed LA. No.262 of 2023 in O.S, No.41 of 2013 holding that, calling the sub-registrar and superintendent of tobacco board to produce the said documents would not 6 substantiate the case of the petitioner as the proch ction of the rectification deed does not constitute proof, as it rs a registered docurnent executed post cross-examination of PW-l r rd after eight years of the suit. Thus, the burden of proving its vz I dity rests on the party relying thereon | 4.Further, calling the superintendent of Tobacco tcard to give evidence in the above suit is contrary to Rule 28 of I i Civit Rules and Circular order. Accordingly, the trial Court l eld that the aforesaid authorities cannot be called for to pro.l lce the said docurnents and was not necessary for the adjudr< ation of tlre matter l5.Tlre trial Court dismissed I.A. No.308 of 2023 in - S. No. 60 of 2017, holding that the sub-registrar cannot be r tmmoned to produce the .original gift deed for signature cotnp; -ison, as the witness to a document need not also be witness to r r gistration. as such it cannot be compared

16.Further, the production of the rectiflcation de:d does not constitute proof, as it is a registered document execul, d post cross- examination of PW-1 and after six years of the suit Accordingly, 1 the trial Court held that the aforesaid authority cannot be called for to produce the said document and was not necessary for the adjudication of the rnatter

17. Aggrieved by the above said order dated 21 02.2024 the petitioners herein have preferred the present Civil Revision Petitions.

18. Heard learned cotmsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record Contentions of the petitioners in C.R.P No. 1454 of 2024 before this Court

19.The petitioners contend that the impugned order is contrary to law and the trial Court failed to consider the scope and object of the certified copy and did not exercise its .yurisdiction under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC in considering the bona fides of the application in the suit, despite it being necessary and relevant documents to substantiate the suit; that they are entitled and has right to seek documents from the concerned authorities, hence, the trial Court has ample power to compare the documents by invoking the Evidence Act for the effective adjudication ofthe suit 8 a\

20. Per Contra, the respondents contend that the all:1ed gift deed dated 04.11.1999 lacks the thumb impressions and ;ignatures of defendants Nos. 16, 9, and, 4. Further, the rectificatic n deed dated 08 03 2021 contains only the thumb irnpression ol'l:fendant No 16; and that the defendant No.l6 in all other documr'r ts attested in -lelugu, as such the claim of the revision petitioners r petitioner of execrLtion of gifi deed and rectification deed in the -r ear 2021 are lalse and concocted Contentions of the petitioners in C.R.P No. 1464 c,l 2024 before this Court 2l.The petitioners contend that the impugned order ; contrary to lav'u, and the trial Court failed to consider the concei t of certified copics of public documents and did not exercise rt jurisdiction under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC in considering the bon r Jides of t\e application in the suit for verification, despite it bt'r rg necessary and relevant docurnents to substantiate the suit: t rat they are entitled and has right to seek documents from tl e concerned authorities, hence, the trial Court had ample power tr compare the docurnents by invoking the Evidence Act, Registrrr ion Act and Transfer of Property Act for proper adjudication of the suit 9

22. Per Conlra, the respondents contend that the alleged gift deed dated 04.1t 1999{6ks the thumb irnpressions and signatures of defendants Nos. 16, 9, and 4 and the rectification deed dated

08.03.2021 bears the signature of defendants No l6 only (in O.S No.41 of2013). Therefore, the allegations regarding both deeds are lalse and not maintainable.

23. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. Consideration bv this Court

24. At the outset, it is trite law that the scope of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is lirnited The High Court while entertaining its supervisory jurisdiction, cannot sit in appeal over the order passed by the Trial Court. Interference is to be exercised only when the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, or manifest procedural inegularity or the Court passing such order lacks jurisdiction. It is equally well settled that interference in exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot be shown merely because another view is possible. (See: Trimbak Gangadhar Telang and Ors. Vs. 10 t' Ramchandra Ganesh Bhide and OrsI, arrd Shalini i hyam Shetty antl Ors. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Pati/)

25.In the lacts at hand, the petitioner herein is seek r g ploduction of docurnent br sub-registrar and rectification deec .o prove and colnpare the srgnature or thumb impressions av,r lable in the original record However, it is to be noted that exccl t for the fact that the allegecl docunrerrt is already rnarked as an j rhibit, it rvas tarled to prol'c bl the petitioner. Further wlre n the alleged rectification deed took place during pendency of the ; Lit after cross examination o1' I'}W- I and after eight years of suit, tl : brrr.den lies on the petitroncr to prove its authenticity, which rte 1;etitioner herein lailed to do so

26.As such, the sub-registrar cannot be summoner lo prove the document in qucstion as the summoning of the origrr al of the gift settlement deed rvould serve no purpose as seconl try evidence thereof. 'l-hus, the production of the document in qrrc: ion does not prLma.fhcie advance tlie case of the petitioner. '(r977):sc('{r7 ' lzrrlo.t s scc ::l 11

27.Order 16 Rule 6 CPC authorizes the Court to summon any person to produce a document without being sumrnoneci to give evidence. The discretion vesting in the Court would have to be exercised judiciously

28.Though the certified copy of the document in question has already been marked in evidence. The alleged copy was certified to be a truc copy by none other than the registration authorities thernselves. That being so, asking the Sub-Registrar, Kanigiri, to produce tl.re original of the very same document available in their custody a long with the Thumb Impression Register does not irnprove the case of the plaintiff

29.Further, as Sub-Registrars are not posted permanently and as the Sub-Registrar, who was available at the time of execution, would not, in all probability, be available now. Thus, in the instant case the offlcial would not be in a position to speak of the execution of the said document from his own knowledge (See: Veerabomma Laxmamma vs. Veerabomma Chandrasekhar and or?1. ' zo tr (c) etr o:z 0

30. Since, the onus ofproving the execution and valr ity ofthe gift deed in accordance wrth law is on the revisiorL petitioners / petitioner, mcrcly sumrnoning the Sub-Registrar, Kanigiri to compare thurnb irnpressions or signatures frorn tlu: register does not, in itself, advance the petitioners' case, as the I r.rb-Registrar, who is not the original attesting officer, can onll refer to the rccords and cannol pror,,ide drrect evidence of tlt document's execution or genuinencss; that unless the petitioner satislactorily discharges this burden, the document cannot br: accepted as crediblc. Thus- in the present case the petitioner faikr, to discharge the burden of prool necessary to shrft the onus onto tit ) respondents (See: K. Sharafu Bai vs. Shamshunnisaa).

31. T'he Hon'ble Suprerne Court in Govindbho Chhotabhai Patelv. Patel Romonbhai Mathurbhaii, has held ai t nder.

28. 'l'he Hrgh (-ourt held that the appellants have ot led ary evrdance thot .sigttotrtre tf their.father otr lhe gi/t deetl t s forged as netlher lhe V)ectmen .\tg ature nor writings of their.lt,her /br the put'l)ose ry' utmlnrittg the disputetl signalure on lhe gi,, deul haye been altenptad. Thert, is tD report oJ an expert tr. respect of :tigndture.J o/ the donor on the grft deed nor any requr. t was made Jor .sendirtg lhc tlocunrcr to lht loren.\ic Science Ltlt't ralor-\,. Thc High ('otrr lPatel llamanhhoi lvlathurbhai r. Govindbhai o (zoot) i scc +q ' (2010r I() SCC l5r / 13 , deed rc it is lhe case of the plainti The plainttffs coulcl have Chhotqhhai Patel, 20tE SCC OnLine Gu1 1763J held as utrler; (Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai case [patel Ramqnbhai Mathurbhai t'. (jotln<lbhai Chhotabhai patel, 20 t 8 SCC Online Guj j763J S('(' OnLine Gul paro 68) '68- In ny viev'. the nlointiffs havc miserablv failed lo pr.ot'e alty forge r_t,. lhat the,sitlt rulure of lhe ir 'olfier on lhe lhen the burde n is on them to establish and Drove hv leadins cogent evidence thal the sic ature e<l b anolher A mere doubl rtr assertion or an alle lion o ts not su clenl to eve,, ie drat, an ced the b i4{erence of Jraud. sDectntefi stgnelure or wrtlinqs of their father. if anv. for t'he pu e qLcpups! disputed ygltolurc on the tlift deed. the h'ial courl cutld huye been asked to seek an Dlton o al, ex, d lo the Forensic Science Loboratory b Nqthins of this sorl was done All that ha.s been asserle.l in the c-yt&tec t that the father had no sood reasoll to execu te the si fl volff o the fu ndant m <lecd irr v,hen the son.s v'are lakl t! good care of lheir father This hqrdlv cou ld be termed a.s evidence with regarcl to fraud or forgery. I he plainliffs have not leaded or deaxed that lheir father was illiterale o d was not et'at able to pt!]-bis siguture. If the evidence on record is looked into, lhen the ptaintffi have in substance just expressed doubls as regards tha sigrruture o/ their Jather. ' -se chnt! lhe documenl rl in lhc re 'rl. culqrl intr lhc ,'

32. Further, where the genuineness of signatures or thumb impressions is disputed, the petitioner ought to have sought forensic examination rather than relying solely on the Sub_ Registrar's register or evidence; that such failure to prove the authenticity oI the alleged document, the sub_registrar cannot be sumlnoned to produce the documents. h t4 t\

33. T'he petitioner herein in respect of the recti icatron deed' rnerely cannot seek the sub-registrar to produce rle regrster of rectification deed to cornpare tlte signatures or thurnI itnpressions, he rnust demonstrate that it was executed with the li:e consent of all concerned parlies, without any coerciott fiaud, or mlsrepresentat lon 3,1. Further, the petitioner in respect ofseeking thtr lrodttction ol superintendent of Tobacco Board to give evidence I O.S. No. 4l of 2023 is corrcenred, it is to be noted that, the pt t tioner herein ought to have rnade separate application instead ,f combining several prayers under one application

35. In the instant case. the burden lies on the petitrc ner to adduce cogent and convincing evidence beyond the mere r:gistration of the rectification deed to substantiate the clairn for re: ification, and in absence ol'such proof, the registered rectification I :ed cannot be accepted at face value or relied upon to alter tlrt' terms of the original deed

36. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Cr urt is of the considcred vieu that the trial Court has rigl,t )' held that 15 summoning the sub-registrar will not serve proof of the document in the present petition. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

37. For the above-mentioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the order of the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity or erTor

38. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitionrare devoid of rnerit and are disrnissed. The order dated 21.02.2024 in I.A. No 262 of 2023 in O S No. 4l of 2023, and I.A. No. 308 of 2023 in O.S. No.60 of 2017 are sustained. No order as to costs Consequently, rniscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs SD/. U. SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER I //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The I Additional District Judge, Khammam 2. One CC to Sri Meherchand Nori, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Tarun Ram Aitham, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies WABK/SA HIGH COURT DATED: 1110712025 COMMON ORDER CRP Nos:1454 and 1464 OF 2024 l t { sii o(J t 9, (t N 2026 '., L\ --/ -2/.- DISMISSING BOTH THE CRPs WITHOUT COSTS 16 1k E