YALLAMILLI VENU MOHAN Vs. KONA VENKATA SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole plaintiff before the trial Court filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of order dtd. 12/6/2019 of learned Junior Civil Judge, Mummidivaram in I.A.No.128 of 2019 in O.S.No.114 of 2007. He is aggrieved because of the fact that under the impugned order, learned trial Court granted leave for defendant No.6 in the suit in filing certain documents. Defendant No.6 in the suit is respondent No.1 in this revision. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 are rest of the defendants in the suit.

(2.) This revision petitioner filed O.S.No.114 of 2007 stating that the suit schedule property belongs to Sri Gopala Krishna and he died. Defendant No.2 is his wife and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are his daughters and plaintiff is his son. Therefore, the suit property shall be divided into four shares and grant him one share. Plaint further shows that defendant No.1 is a woman in illegal intimacy with late Gopala Krishna. Gopala Krishna purchased one of the items of the suit schedule property in the name of that woman. Plaint further shows that defendant No.5 in the suit claimed to have purchased another one item of the suit schedule under a registered sale deed dtd. 23/2/2007 executed by defendant No.1. Plaint further shows that defendant No.6 in the suit was not originally party and the plaintiff by filing I.A.No.293 of 2016 got him impleaded. The amended plaint indicates that as per the written statement of defendant No.1, one of the items of the suit schedule property was sold out by her under a registered sale deed dtd. 30/6/2007 and that she got that property because of a Will dtd. 30/12/2005 executed by late Gopala Krishna in her favour. Those are the essential averments in the amended plaint. It seems that issues in the suit were settled and the evidence in the suit was commenced and the evidence on plaintiff's side was over and the matter was posted for evidence on defendants' side. It is at that stage, defendant No.6 came up with I.A.No.128 of 2019 in O.S.No.114 of 2007 under Order VIII Rule 1A and Sec. 151 C.P.C. requesting the Court to condone the delay in filing 9 documents listed therein and receive them. Those documents are as below: 1 to 9:

(3.) Defendant No.6, being the petitioner in I.A.No.128 of 2019, swore an affidavit in support of the petition and stated that all the necessary averments were there in his written statement about his purchase of the property from defendant No.1 and about defendant No.1 getting the property under a Will. It also mentions about the original sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in his favour and about mistake in the survey number and how a registered rectification deed was made by the executant. It further shows that when he purchased property from defendant No.1, she handed over the original unregistered Will dtd. 30/12/2005, but that was misplaced in his house and he recently traced it out and therefore, there is delay so far as Will is concerned. For other registered documents, he stated that the originals were kept with society and he borrowed loan for the purpose of his agricultural operations and thus, the documents were used for mortgage. Therefore originals could not be filed. That he recently obtained certified copies of such originals. With such averments, he sought leave of the Court and receive the documents. Plaintiff was shown as 6th respondent in that application. He filed a counter denying the petition mentioned averments. It is stated that the Will dtd. 30/12/2005 is not at all in existence. That the petitioner filed his written statement on 13/11/2017 and mentioned about this sale deed and the unregistered Will, but did not choose to file along with the written statement. Issues were settled, which also make a reference to this unregistered Will. Defendant No.1 in her sale deed in favour of defendant No.5 did not make a mention about this Will and in the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.6 also there is no recital about the Will. When the plaintiff testified as PW.1 or when cross-examination of DW.1 was done, the Will was not produced. Defendant No.1 gave evidence as DW.1 and in her cross-examination she said that the Will was in her possession. Defendant No.1 is the propounder of the alleged Will but she did not file it. While the cross-examination of DW.1 is pending, defendant No.6 has come up with this petition. The alleged Will is prepared on a scrap of paper by manipulation. Then it is stated that the petitioner/defendant No.6 is a practicing advocate with 20 years standing behind him. The delay stated is misplacement of Will and its recovery and it does not disclose the date of tracing out the Will and how he traced it out. As he/plaintiff took serious contentions about non-existence of the alleged Will dtd. 30/12/2005, the present Will is fabricated and is attempted to be brought on record at this stage. For these reasons he sought for dismissal of the petition.