(1.) The 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 42 of 2003 in the Court of I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 for the relief of declaration that she is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule properties and for the relief for perpetual injunction. Decree was also sought for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards the cost of timber said to have been removed from the premises and a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards damages. She based her claim on the plea that her mother was married to the original owner of the property by name Moosa Hajee Abdullah and after his death, her mother succeed to the property. The mother in turn is said to have executed a will in favour of the 1st respondent. The petitioners herein resisted the suit by asserting title in themselves. They placed reliance upon the transactions of gift. The trial of the suit commenced. The evidence on behalf of the 1st respondent was concluded.
(2.) In the course of their evidence, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 265 of 2008 with a prayer to receive three documents in evidence viz., a written declaration said to have been made by late Moosa Hajee Abdullah on 25.04.1955 and two other declarations of similar nature dated 09.12.1955. The plea of the petitioners was that the three documents are not deeds of gift by themselves but are the notes or declarations in respect of the oral gifts made anterior in point of time. The 1st respondent opposed the I.A. Through is order, dated 18.03.2008, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. and refused to take the documents in evidence. The same is challenged in this revision.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that at more places than one in the documents, it was mentioned that the petitioners became entitled for the property much earlier thereto and thereby, the documents have to be understood as mere references to earlier transactions. He submits that the trial Court committed error in treating the documents as gift deeds by themselves.