Posts

Showing posts from March, 2016

for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features of the suit schedule as per the work memo to be filed by both the parties = The suit schedule property is only a portion of the land in the entire survey number and according to them they have made developments in the land which would show their possession and enjoyment. Unless an Advocate Commissioner is appointed to note the various physical features such as available water resources, irrigation channels, mosambi garden and localization of the suit schedule property in the total extent of the survey number great prejudice would be caused to the petitioners. The grant of relief in the I.A. was resisted by the respondents/plaintiffs. Learned Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, after considering the case on merits dismissed the I.A.= Order XVIII Rule 17A C.P.C. where a provision was available for production of evidence not previously known or which could not be produced despite due diligence was repealed by the Act 46 of 1999, Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002. In other words, the right of a party to produce evidence not previously known or which could not be produced despite due diligence was also taken away. The effect of the omission of Order XVIII Rule 17A C.P.C. in the context of the other provisions would leave no manner of doubt that the parties to the proceedings are required to be diligent in the first instance and at every stage to protect their interests and bring best possible evidence at the earliest. The same is evident from various other amendments which have been brought in the CPC. The object of various amendments is to curtile the delay in disposal of the suits and to discourage the parties to the suit to prolong the proceedings. In the present case, it is not even the case of the petitioners that the application of the nature seeking appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features of the suit schedule land could not have been made at the earliest point of time. We may note that the suit came to be filed in the year 2006, numbered in the year 2007 and the written statement itself came to be filed by the petitioners on 28.03.2007. It is an admitted fact that the suit is at the stage of arguments of the defendants. At this belated stage the relief of the nature cannot be granted. Another aspect which needs to be considered is maintainability of such application invoking section 151 C.P.C. though relief of the nature is akin to the relief that could be considered under Order XVIII Rule 17A C.P.C. The enormous delay that is likely to be caused in entertaining the applications of this nature at every stage succinctly elaborate in the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents. At this stage, this court is conscious of the limitations. Further allowing of the application of this nature at this stage would only be paving way for one or the other of the parties to fill lacuna in evidences which is also not permissible. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the junior civil judge refusing to entertain the application for reopening of the case and further refusal to appoint advocate commissioner cannot be found fault and accordingly there are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition.

When the plaintiff has accepted the signature of the defendant as the admitted signature, there can be no objection to the Court to send the same for experts opinion. The present one is a converse case where the defendant himself wants his signatures available in the suit record to be treated as admitted signatures. The plaintiff cannot be put to the risk of sending such signatures for experts opinion unless he has agreed for the proposal of the defendant. As respondent No.1 objected to the petitioners request and in the absence of availability of admitted contemporaneous signatures, the lower Court has rightly rejected the petitioners request. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of the lower Court for interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Not mere deposit of title deeds = white - requires stamps duty and registration as if it is a mortgage = objection raised by the defendant is upheld =In the instant case, the document in question contains two statements viz., 1) the document relating to the land, which was registered as document No.433 of 2003 was handed over as security for the loan amount; 2) in case of failure to repay the amount, the lender was given full rights to recover the amount against the property secured.- If it is a simple document depositing title deed as a security, it would not have required registration, but when authorised the lender to take action for recovery of money on the basis of such deposit of title deed coupled with Memorandum, it requires registration. This distinction was not maintained by the trial Court.- The document was executed on a white paper. Article 7 of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was amended by substituting the said Article under the Act 19 of 2005 w.e.f. 01-08-2005 requiring proper stamp duty. Article 35 of Schedule 1-A of the Act deals with Mortgage deed. In either of the cases, it requires stamp duty and if it is a mortgage deed, it further requires registration though it is styled as Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds.

Adverse possession = if in possession under invalid document by virtue of which the transferee gets no title or right, his possession is adverse to the transferor to count for adverse possession as person in possession claiming right of his own against the real owner under invalid document is tantamount to denial of title = when P perfected title by adverse possession from his open, peaceful and uninterrupted possession in his own way of enjoyment and not on behalf of G the original owner under the void gift, right from said un-registered gift deed dated 21.02.1966 (Ex.B-2) the plaintiffs suit for declaration which is beyond three years barred by law under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, though otherwise maintainable for recovery of possession under Article 65 of the Act, since the right and title of G since extinguished and right by adverse possession created in favour of P, G is not entitled to the suit reliefs and thereby, the trial Court when dismissed the suit, for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere.

The rejection of the earlier Memo of the respondent filed for reserving his right to lead his evidence after the closure of the evidence of the defendant does not have any bearing on the request of the former to permit him to examine the attestor on the ground that he was not available at a time when his evidence was recorded. After all, the ultimate endeavour of the Court is to arrive at proper and correct conclusions on the issues arising before it. In a suit for recovery of money on the strength of a promissory note, the evidence of an attestor is very crucial. Such an important evidence cannot be shut out only on the ground of delay. I am therefore of the opinion that the order of the lower Court permitting the respondent to let in the evidence of one of the attestors of the suit promissory note does not suffer from any jurisdictional error calling for interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Section 5 The Limitation Act, 1963= the explanation offered by the petitioner for condonation of inordinate delay of 681 days is bereft of material particulars regarding the petitioner's sickness and his shifting to Golugonda Mandal from Sabavaram let alone substantiating the said allegations by filing relevant material. The petitioner has not shown any kind of diligence in filing the written statement and contesting the suit and also in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree within the reasonable time. On considering the conspectus of the facts in their entirety, I am of the opinion that the lower Court is more than justified in dismissing the petitioner's application for condonation of delay.

When once succession certificate Ex.A3 is filed into the Court, the plaintiff need not prove in this suit that he was adopted son of late Narayanamma and that therefore he is entitled to recover the suit debt as legal heir of the payee. On the basis of mere succession certificate, the plaintiff is entitled to obtain decree in the suit, when there is no dispute about Ex.A1 pronote and when discharge pleaded by the defendant was disbelieved.

When once succession certificate Ex.A3 is filed into the Court, the plaintiff need not prove in this suit that he was adopted son of late Narayanamma and that therefore he is entitled to recover the suit debt as legal heir of the payee. On the basis of mere succession certificate, the plaintiff is entitled to obtain decree in the suit, when there is no dispute about Ex.A1 pronote and when discharge pleaded by the defendant was disbelieved.

When once succession certificate Ex.A3 is filed into the Court, the plaintiff need not prove in this suit that he was adopted son of late Narayanamma and that therefore he is entitled to recover the suit debt as legal heir of the payee. On the basis of mere succession certificate, the plaintiff is entitled to obtain decree in the suit, when there is no dispute about Ex.A1 pronote and when discharge pleaded by the defendant was disbelieved.

Andhra High Court Alla Nagireddy vs G.Narayana Reddy on 1 March, 2013 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU SECOND APPEAL No.1090 OF 1998 01.03.2013 Alla Nagireddy G.Narayana Reddy JUDGMENT: Unfortunate plaintiff, who failed in both the courts below, is the appellant in the second appeal. He filed the suit for recovery of Rs.11,900/- from the defendant on the basis of Ex.A1 promissory note dated 1.7.1979 executed by the defendant in favour of one Narayanamma. Narayanamma is no more. Execution of Ex.A1 pronote by the defendant after receiving the consideration thereunder is admitted. Plea of the defendant is one of discharge of the amount to Narayanamma when she was alive. The trial court disbelieved the plea of discharge. But the trial court, after trial, dismissed the suit on the ground that Ex.A3 succession certificate dated 20.12.1988 in favour of the plaintiff is invalid. On appeal by the plaintiff, the lower appe…

This proviso is inserted obviously to ensure that the parties will not unduly prolong the litigation and they are diligent in pursuing the litigation. Therefore, an application for amendment of pleadings filed after commencement of the trial needs to be considered keeping in view the above salutary purpose for which the proviso is inserted. In the written statement, the petitioner averred that he never executed the suit promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff at any point of time, that he never made part payments under the suit promissory notes and that he never endorsed on the backside of the two promissory notes. He has also specifically pleaded that the signatures contained in the promissory notes and payment endorsements are not his signatures and that the suit promissory notes are rank forgery. He has also stated that he has not received any amount under the two suit promissory notes at any point of time. By these pleadings, the petitioner specifically denied the execution of suit promissory notes as well as making of the two alleged endorsements by him besides denying his signatures on the suit promissory notes and alleging that the suit pronotes are rank forgeries. In the face of these averments, this Court is unable to comprehend as to the necessity of the petitioner to file an additional written statement with respect to the alleged endorsements and the purported alterations. If the petitioner has noticed during the cross-examination of the respondent that there were any material alterations at column No.12 and insertion of the signatures of the attestors before filing of the suit, nothing would have prevented him from eliciting these aspects from the evidence of P.W.1 in her cross-examination. The petitioner is silent as to whether any attempt was made by him to elicit answers on these features from P.W.1. In addition to cross-examining P.W.1 on these aspects, the petitioner has an opportunity of adducing his oral evidence wherein he can also bring out the features, which he allegedly noticed during the cross-examination of P.W.1. On these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the application filed for amendment of written statement is a mere ploy or subterfuge evidently to drag on the suit proceedings. Though the lower Court has dismissed the application for different reasons, this Court is of the opinion that there is no necessity for the petitioner to seek amendment of the written statement.