Pillutla Pardhasaradhi Sastry & Ors vs Valiveti Siva Jyothi & Ors

V. Sujatha, J

1) This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the intermittent order dated 11.09.2024 passed in O.S.No.200 of 2023 by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tenali, whereby, the Trial Court rejected the request of the plaintiffs to mark documents of 3rd parties.

2) For the sake of convenience, the parties to the revision will hereinafter be referred as plaintiffs and defendants, as arrayed before the Trial Court in O.S.No.200 of 2023.

3) The petitioners-plaintiffs filed suit O.S.No.200 of 2023 as against the respondents – defendants seeking to declare the registered sale deed document No.695/2022 dated 12.05.2022 said to have been executed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.1 at J.S.R.O. Kollipara as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and to restrain the defendants to alienate/mortgage/transfer the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the respondents/defendants raised a specific plea in their written statement that the plaintiffs have not filed any document to show that the plaint schedule property was purchased by Pillutla Lakshmi Narasimha Sastry for the purpose of Brahmin Choultry. The plaintiffs also have not filed any documents to show that the said Pillutla Lakshmi Narasimha Sastry gifted the plaint schedule property to the Brahmin Community.

4) To prove the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 filed his chief affidavit along with exhibits viz., the registered sale deed dated 12.05.2022 vide document No.695 of 2022 executed in favour of defendant No.1 by defendant Nos.2 and 3 and also got exhibited the registered sale deed extracts of one Bhimireddy Venkata Reddy, dated 06.07.1967 and one Gade Rajasekhara Reddy dated 16.12.2022 apart from the certificate issued by Vallabhapuram Panchayat Secretary dated 06.03.2023 and 10 positive photographs along with C.D. When plaintiff No.1 is being examined as P.W.1 and when the certified copies of documents (document Nos.2 and 3 of list of documents) of said Bhimireddy Venkata Reddy and Gade Rajasekhara Reddy were intended to be brought on record to prove the boundaries of plaint schedule property, learned counsel for the defendants raised an objection in exhibiting these two documents, as they are filed to prove boundaries of the plaint schedule property, on the ground that they are to be marked through the concerned parties only and the said documents relate to 3rd parties, as the plaintiff is not a party to the proceedings, they cannot be exhibited through him and the boundaries of plaint schedule property cannot be proved by plaintiff No.1 by exhibiting the documents of 3rd parties.

5) The Court below after considering the arguments of both the counsel, passed the impugned intermittent order dated 11.09.2024 stating that exhibiting the certified copies of documents of 3rd parties by plaintiff No.1 to prove the boundaries of suit schedule property is not sustainable. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioners – plaintiffs.

6) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners – plaintiffs and learned counsel for the respondents – defendants.

7) Learned counsel for the petitioners – plaintiffs contended that plaintiff No.1 sought for marking of two registered sale deed extracts along with other documents and in view of objection raised by the defendants, the Court below ought to have marked the document Nos.2 and 3 shown in the list of documents subject to objection on admissibility, relevancy and proof, instead of doing so, the Court below passed the impugned order. Further, he contended that the Court below has to decide the admissibility and relevancy of those documents at the time of arguments, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and requested to allow the revision.

8) Learned counsel for the respondents – defendants contended that the plaintiffs are relying on the certified copies of documents or registered deeds of 3rd parties, admittedly, who are not parties to the proceedings, and that the party who approaches the Court has to stand on his own legs but shall not rely on the weakness of other parties and that the plaintiffs have not filed any documents to prove that the suit schedule property was purchased by Pillutla Lakshmi Narasimha Sastry for the benefit of Brahmin community, and requested to dismiss the revision.

9) Admittedly, in the present case, petitioners-plaintiffs filed suit O.S.No.200 of 2023 as against the respondents – defendants seeking to declare the registered sale deed document No.695/2022 dated 12.05.2022 said to have been executed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.1 at J.S.R.O. Kollipara as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and to restrain the defendants to alienate/mortgage/transfer the suit schedule property. During the course of trial, when the certified copies of documents of said Bhimireddy Venkata Reddy and Gade Rajasekhara Reddy were intended to be brought on record through plaintiff No.1 to prove the boundaries of plaint schedule property, learned counsel for the defendants raised an objection in exhibiting these two documents, as they are filed to prove boundaries of the plaint schedule property, on the ground that they are to be marked through the concerned parties only, then the Court below rejected the request of plaintiff No.1 to mark those documents.

10) In “G.Sukender Reddy Vs. M.Pullaih 2015 (4) ALD 194”, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners – plaintiffs, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad held that the objection relating to relevancy of the document need not be decided at the time of marking the document. The objection relating to admissibility can be raised by the defendant at a later stage and should be decided by the Court at the time of pronouncement of judgment.

11) The law laid down in the said judgment is not in dispute, but the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the petitioners herein – plaintiffs intended to mark recitals of boundaries in documents between third parties, which should not be held to be admissible in evidence in proof of title of the parties seeking to rely upon them.

12) In “Madanlal Vs. Durgadutt 1957 SCC OnLine Raj 55”, relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents – defendants, the High Court of Rajasthan while dealing with marking of recitals of boundaries in documents between the third parties held as follows:

“Now, it appears to us that the correct, legal position as to recitals of boundaries in documents is something like this. Where a recital has been made in a document "inter parties", it would be a joint statement made by the parties to the document, and, therefore, relevant against them as an admission. Again, where the recital occurs in a document between a party and a stranger, it would be relevant against a party as an admission but not admissible in his favour. Where, however, the recital is in a document between strangers, it is not a particular instance in which a right was claimed, recognized or exercised or a transaction by which a right was claimed or asserted within the meaning of Section 13 of the Evidence Act. There was at one time a fairly serious conflict of opinion as to the admissibility of recitals of boundaries mentioned in documents executed between strangers where one of the parties to the suit was mentioned as owner of an adjoining land. At this date, however, there seems to be a heavy preponderance of opinion that recitals of boundaries in documents between third parties are inadmissible to show that any party to the suit is or is not the owner of an adjoining land which has been mentioned as one of the boundaries in such documents................

We are, therefore, of the opinion that recitals of boundaries in documents between third parties should not be held to be admissible in evidence in proof of title of the parties seeking to rely upon them.”

13) In “R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple and Ors (2003) 8 SCC 752”, relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents – defendants, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently.

The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:- (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision.

In the latter case, the objection should be taken before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The later proposition is a rule of fair play.”

14) Generally, in order to avoid delay in the trial of the suit, the Court can tentatively mark a document and examine its admissibility and the objection at the time of pronouncement of judgment. In the present case, the defendants objected to mark the documents sought to be marked by the plaintiffs on the ground that the parties to those documents are third parties to the suit. Further, as per the law laid down in the judgments referred supra, the recitals of boundaries in documents between third parties should not be held to be admissible in evidence in proof of title of the parties seeking to rely upon them. Further, it can also be observed that if such objection is not raised at the time of admissibility of those documents, the respondents/defendants would lose the opportunity of raising such objection subsequently.

15) In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court did commit no error warranting interference of this Court in the intermittent order dated 11.09.2024 passed in O.S.No.200 of 2023 and the revision is devoid of merits, consequently, the revision is liable to be dismissed. However, with a view to afford an opportunity to the plaintiffs to prove their case and with a view to put an end to the lis, this Court is of the opinion that if the plaintiffs want to rely upon those documents, they are at liberty to examine any of the parties to those documents as a witness and get those documents marked through them.

16) In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the plaintiffs are at liberty to examine any of the parties to the documents sought to be marked as exhibits, as a witness and get those documents marked through them. No costs.

17) Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand dismissed.