The High Court · 2025

ORDER THE HONOI]RABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISION PETITTON No.2 528 of2022 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 aggrieved by the order dated 18'lO'2022 in I'A' No'515 of 2022in O.S. No.77 of 2016 passed by the Principal District Judge at Bhongir'

2. The respondent No'5-plaintiff filed the suit for partition claiming half share each in the suit schedule properties along with defendant No.l. Her contention was that her father acquired the suit schedule properties, total admeasuring Acs'28'24 gts'' situated at Basanthapur Village, Raj apet Mandal, Nalgonda District from his father in a partition with his brothers towards his share and that her father died intestate leaving the plaintiff, her sister-defendant No'l and their mother, by name, Rukkamma' In the said property' she along with defendant No.l were entitled to 4l9th shares each and their mother Rukkamma was entitled for 1/9h share' Her further contention was that the defendant No.2 and late Krishna Reddy were her sons, and they stealthily got mutated patta of the suit schedule property on their names equally without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff' The mother of the plaintiff i.e. Rukkamma was not having any exclusive right to 2 Dr AIA./ t:Rl' Nn 2528 oJ 2022 execute irn'r' ( ()cument in favour of defendant No.2 and late Krishna Reddy and evcn if any document was executed, it wou[d not confer any rights to rh' <rt:r'endant No.2 and she demanded deltndrnt l.ro.2 and late Krishna R'e'ld\ br cancellation of registered docurnents anc fbr partition and separatr: pcssession of her due share. The rvife anc children of Krishna Rerjdy .vere shown as defendant Nos.3 to 5.

3. T,re Jef-endant No. 1 filed written statement sailrng with the plaintiff adn' ittrr g the case of the praintiff and reportine no obiection to pass a prelirnirarv decree by allotting half share rn ttre srrit schedule propertles

4. l-h,: defendant Nos.2 to 5 filed a common writte I statement contending tl'ar' trre defendant No.2 and his brother rate Kri:rhna Reddy were both r_h(.. s(,l)s of plaintiff. The suit schedule propefijsl. pertain to their grandfarhr:r. (mother,s father) Mendu China Jogi Re<liy and got partitioned betvi,rr:n him and his brother late Krishna Reddy betbre the village elders ir: t,e year 1996 and the properties were nrutal:d in their names. Sin,:e lt :n, they were enjoying their half share iir the suit schedule pnrpr:ri:s. After the demise of late Krish_na Rerlcly, detendant Nos.3 to 5, ,wr fc ;rird children of late Krishna Reddy, wer: enioying the 3 D..GRR,J CRr No.2528 of2022 a, half share. There was no joint family among the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 5. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 were maintaining the plaintiff by providing food, shelter and giving money to her as per her interest and she was not entitled to seek partition in the suit schedule property' They further contended that the plaintiff was aged more than 80 years and the defendant Nos.2 to 5 were taking responsibility of her health and livelihood. The property was acquired by the plaintiff from her father' Her husband came as illatom to her parents' house and the suit schedule properties were devolved on him' The sister of the plaintiff' who was defendant No. 1, was residing in her in-laws' house after her marriage' as such, she was having no right on the said property' The father of the plaintiff also provided sufficient means to her at the time of her marriage and prayed to dismiss the suit' Basing on the said pteadings, issues were framed and the 5 matter was Posted lor trial.

6. During the course of trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW'1 and the defendant No.l was examined as DW'l' When the matter was posted for the evidence of defendant Nos.2 to 5, at lhat stage, defendant Nos.2 to 5 hled I'A. No'515 of 2022 under OrderVIII Rule 1A read I D|GRRJ CR? No.2i2E of2022 with Sect.ic,n I i: I of CpC, to receive certain docunrents . A long with the petition, dt:ferrLrlant No.2 filed an affidavit stating that r,rhile he was searching oid ,r:pers, he found two registered gift settrr:me;rt deeds vide documenl lJcs..t04 of l9g5 and 405 of 19g5, both dared 25.04.19g5, executed rv hi; grandmother Rukkamma in his tarour and in favour of late Krishna ll eddy in respect of the suit schedule Iand rrnd non_suit land. Dor:urr:tt No.404 of I9g5 was in a tom condilion, as such, he obtained cerlifir:rl copy of the same on Og.0g.2o22,bLrt, wher.eas he filed original docrrnrurt No.405 of 19g5. The said registt:red gift deeds were implement,:cj in the revenue records and they were i;sued Rt)R pattadar passbooks ,and t:tle deeds. They were also issued neu, dig ital lrass books. He also fiI,:d pahanies for the years l9g2_g3, tgg4_95, lggt,_9g, 2OOO_ 01, 2003-0.+.20 r1_11, 20l1_12,2012_13, specimen cop,, of pass book, 1-B and pahanie s belonged to him, photo copy of old ROR pattedar Pass Book, Br,tnk .1_oan Statement issued by State Bank o1.Indra, Rajapet Branch, specirr,:r copy ofpass book, l-B belonged to the :etitioner_ defendant No l, lank loan statement issued by Central llanl of India, charlur brancrr' He further stated that they courd not file the said documents alr:nrr with the written statement, as the s;rid r-egistered documents rl,ere ;.aced out by him recently while r;earr:hinr.l the old .,.4 .: I 5 D.GRRJ CRP No.2528 of2022 trunkboxintheirhouse.Thecertifiedcopiesofpahanieswereobtained recently from the Tahsildar, Rajapet' as well as bank certificates' Dharani record. He contended that the documents were crucial to prove his case and prayed to receive them in evidence'

7. The respondent No'2-defendant No'l in the said petition filed counter contending that the pleadings were completed long back' issues were framed and basing on the pleadings' the plaintifls side evidence was also completed. The evidence of the defendant No'1 was also over and the matter was coming up for the evidence of defendant Nos'2 to 5' At the said stage, defendant Nos.2 to 5 sought to project a new case altogether in total deviation to the one pleaded in paragraph No'4 to their written statement and produced certain documents for the first time contrary to their written statement' Such a course would cause prejudice to the parties and would jeopardize the interest of the said respondent and the same was impermissible in law' The respondent No'2 further contended that filing of the documents at that stage would show lack of due diligence on the part ofthe petitioners. The petitioners alleged that they obtained pahanies recently, but could not state anything as to what prevented them from so applying and referring the same in the written statement and prayed to dismiss the application. 6 D|CRRJ t:RP !\'o 2528 o12022 8 I'he learned principal District Judge at Bhongir., on hearing the counse,l I rpearing for the parties, allowed the application. Aggrieverl b.,, the said order dated 1g.10.2022 11 arlowing the applicatiorr filcrl vide I.A. No.5l5 of 2022, tht: respor.dent No.2_ defendant N,:r. r f,referred this revision.

9. H::anl Sri B. Venkateswara Rao, learned r,oun sel for the No. I and Sri D. Jaya Simha Reddy, ean.ed counsel petitioner-der,enrlant for the resp,crrdt:r I s I to 4 - delendant Nos.2 to 5.

10. Leanr :,r counsel for the petitioner-defendant |Jo, r submitted that the trial ,::our. ought to have seen that the documerrts filed along with the afl'rda'rt 'rf DW'1 were contrary to the stan<r of trre lefendant Nos.2 to 5 tn tht:jr written statement that they got the suit schedule properties undt:r a lrartition. Issues were also framed by r he tr.ial court on the basis of -h: pleadings of the parties and the triar hari cor,menced and now the del'e,,rrrnts wanted to introduce the documents, which were contrary to the :;tano taken by them. The trial court mecharical y with a pre-determined mirr,l accepted the pleadings of the pttitionerr, therein stated in the aLflrd r rit filed in suppoft of their petition. Tfre tr. ar court ought to have st:en that grant of leave was not for merr: asJiing and the \ 7 UGRRJ CRP No 252E of2022 ,/ court was not a mere post office to receive the documents even in the absence of any reasons being fumished for failure to plead them in the written statement and failed to consider that the respondents-defendant Nos.2 to 5 had not filed those documents along with their written statement and were sleeping over the same all these years and depriving the petitioner an opportunity to respond to them' The documents were filed for the first time without any basis in the pleadings' The trial court failed to see that the reasons given by the petitioners before it were patently false and untenable and even contrary to the averments of the written statement and there was absolutely no explanation as to why the said documents, including the alleged gift deeds' could not be filed along with the written statement and retied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bachhaj Nahar v' Nilima Mandal & anotherr and in Carona Ltd. v. Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons2'

11. Leamed counsel for the respondents-defendant Nos'2 to 5' on the other hand, supported the impugned order passed by the teamed Principal District Judge, Bhongir and contended that the documents could be produced at any stage and as the documents were traced out subsequently, the same could not be mentioned in the written statement' t etn zoo9 sc tto3 ' lzoozy t scc ssl i I I i i I 8 DT.CRR.J The revis;ic,n 1x:titioner will be having an opportunity to c:oss_examine DW.2 on tlre above aspects and relied upon the judgmenr ol:the Hon,ble Apex Cour in Levaku pedda Reddamma & Ors. r. (,]ottumukkala Venkata Sr_rhtramma & Another3 on the aspect that t,r delrrive a party to the suit 'rot ,o file documents even if there was sorre rlslsy wsu[d lead to dr:n ial r,f justice, the trial court ought to ira'r: irr., posed some costs rathur th i r to decline the production of the <rocu men ts itself, the rules of pr,rr- :ck u.e are hand_maid ofjustice.

12. Pt:nr:rr:d the record.

13. A:; r;tx:n from the written statement filed by ciefer.dant Nos.2 to 5, they h,r'e taken the prea that the defendant No 2 arrd his late brother Krishnrr Leddy had partitioned the propert.r in the year 1996 before the rillate elders and that they got the propcftv tiorn their grandfather N,lenou China Jogi Reddy. In the present ap,plicrtion, they were filing I i,r'r registered gift settlement deeds exe( utec by their grandmother i{r_tlJ:amma in their favour in respect o1. the. suir land and some other pr()rr( rries and contended that the said registe red gi1. deeds were implerrc nted in the revenue records and they wcrr: iss,ued ROR pattedar passbor:,I. s and title deeds. Thus, the docuntent; f.il:d bv the r 2022 Larvsuit (:jC :.]i, 9 Dt.GR&J CILP No 2528 of 2022 respondents-defendant Nos.2 to 5 were contrary to the stand of the defendant Nos.2 to 5 in their written statement hled by them earlier' The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bachhaj Nahar v' Nilima Mandal & another (1 supra) had stated the fundamental rules of civil procedure as: (i) No amount of evidence can be looked into, upon a iiea which was never put forward in the pleadings' A question which did arise fiom the pleadings and which was not the subject matter of an issue, cannot be decided by the court. (ii) A Court cannot make out a case not pleaded' The court should confine its decision to the question raised in pleadings. Nor can it grant a relief which is not ctaimed and which does not flow from the facts and the cause ofaction alleged in the plaint' (iii) A factual issue cannot be raised or considered for the first time in a second aPPeal.

9. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure thit the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defrned and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. Its object is also to fnsure that eaih side is fully alive to the questions that are likely to be raised or considered so that they may have an opportunity of placing the relevant evidence appropriate- to the issues before the court for its consideration. This Court has repeatedly held that the pleadings are meant to give to each side intimation of of the other so that it may be met, to enable ttr" "*" courts to determine what is really at issue between the parties, and to prevent any deviation ftom the course which litigation on particular causes must take'

10. The object of issues is to identi$ from the pleadings the questions or points required to be iecideJby the courts so as to enable parties to let in evidence thereon. When the facts necessary to make out a particular claim, or to seek a particular relief' are not found in the plaint, the court cannot focus the attention of the parties, or its own attention on that claim or relief, by ftaming a" -rpropriate issue' As a ,,J I l0 DrGRR,.t ( RP \o 2)26 of2A22 r':nrlt the defendant does not get an opportunily tc 1:J rr:e the facts and contentio rur :hattenge rr"h "-;i;;":: in:::?r::;:il'lT: crr11 cannot, on finding that the plaintiff has not rnade ',,u. rhe case put forth by him. grant some otl)cr r,.lief. rrc quesrron betore a court is not whether tlrc.c is sorre material on the basis of which some reliefcru be g).rted. The question is whether *y ."fi"f ._,- b" gr':rrcJ. whcn the delendant nua no'opporirri,. iJ yh.i t{ia1-1he retief proposed ty tt. "ou.iJouil;,; i; Eranted. When there is no prayer for a paaicllar n,iicl 1r( no pteadlngs to support such a reliel antJ uhcn lut no opportunity to resisl or onposc : ucl) '-t 1 ( r t:r. l the cou-rl considers and grants such a re icl- t *i I Iead to miscarriage ofjusticel Thus it ls ,aia ..nri ),) amuunl evidence. on a plea ttraf is nnt nri pleadings. can be looked inro r,, girnr ,:T,- _of i,,'l;ji.i'the I ,

14. f l.us pleadings play an important role and other pafy must have an opp.rtunity to resist them. As observed by the Ho.r,ble Apex court' the oh jec t of issues is to identify the questrons or lroints that required to b,..rl:.:ided by the courts from the pleadings of :he parties and it is a v,erl ,:;rablished principle of law that no amour)t ol evidence, on a plea thal is ror put forward in the pleadings call be lool..ed into to grant any relie f,

15. As ,,e,:t from the facts of the case, the responde nts_rlefendant Nos.2 to 5 l- a<l not stated in their written statetnenr ab cut their grandmother R r[J ::unma executing two registered gift sefllem,:nt deeds in their favo ur ; r rl that the same were implementerl in the revenue \ \ ; ; D|GRRJ CRP No 2528 of 2022 records. The said gift settlement deeds were also alleged to be executed in the year 1985 and the suit was flled in the year 2016. As per the respondents-defendant Nos.2 to 5, they also obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds, and the pahanies also disclose the said fact. But, they failed to mention the same in their written sLatement. Thus, the documents filed by the respondents-defendant Nos.2 to 5 were not supporled by their pleadings. The trial court i.e. the leamed Principal District Judge, Bhongir, without observing the same, allowed the petition and in contra observed that the documents sought to be filed are in furtherance of the contentions of the petitioners-defendant Nos.2 to 5 which was not the case of the defendant Nos.2 to 5 in their written statement. In the judgment relied by the leamed counsel for the respondents-defendant Nos.2 to 5 in Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors. v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Another (3 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that as there was a delay in hling the documents, stated that rules of procedure were hand-maid of justice and even there was some delay, the trial court ought to have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself. But, the facts of the present case would disclose that the documents sought to be filed by the respondents-defendant Nos.2 to 5 were contrary to their t2 Dr-CRR.J t:t:tP .\o 252E o12022 pleadings rrn,J not in accordance with their pleadinlrs. ..'Ulowing the petition lil,,cl ;v the respondents-defendant Nos.2 to 5 to receive and mark the d.cu ntents rvould certainly cause prejudtce to thr: case of the plaintiff as ,^.,r I as defendant No.1-revision petitioner, who were sailing together. l ht: documents should not be iecei,,ed as they would completell ,:ll.rrge the stand of the respondents-deiendant }.los.2 to 5 in the main c rse . The respondents-defendant Nos.2 to 5 Jrad given a complete q:r t,r,e to the stand taken by them in respect of the suit schedule j)r, )per:y. Letting in evidence, contrary to theLr or,,,n pleadings is impernis:;il) c. The documents sought to be filed b,. th,.:m were not hled along ,r''it r their written statement and they failed to ratisfactorily account lc r ,. t Pleading them or fiiing them as required u,c er law. The document:; .\'(,1€ introduced for the first time along with t he evidence affidavit c,f D\y.2, rvhich was in violation of the prinr:iple,s of natural justice, as lh(r petitioner-defendant No.l and thr: respor:dent No.5_ plaintiff hacr ,,r opportunity to oppose the stand of the r espondents- defendant N,.rs.-l to 5.

16. C'rxsi,lering the facts and circumstances of th,: car,e. the order passed by'.h,,' le arned Principar District Judge, Bhongir in I.r! No.5r 5 of , I t i i I i t l3 Dt-GRRJ CRP No-252E of 2022 2022 in O.S. No.77 of 2022 is considered as erroneous and is liable to be set aside.

17. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting l I aside the order dated 18.10.2022 in I.A. No.515 of 2022 in O.S. No.77 of 2016 passed by the Principal District Judge at Bhongir. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR I SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal District Judge at Bhongir 2 One CC to SRt. BOTLA VENKATESWARA RAO Advocate tOpUCl 3 One CC to SRt. DATMERA JAYAS|MHA REDDY Advocate tOpUCl 4. fwo CD Copies To ;i\/ HIGH COUR-I' DATED: iLei!0?112025 ! I l I I I I I I I I Ir r ,I I I I t I E I l I t I ! 1 ! ; I ORDER eRP.No.2528 of 2022 ,': \' . o ( J .) ,.)

25.m M (r'(' D CRP IS ALi.0IT/ED WITHOUT COSTS 5 a d 6le{