K KRISHNA APPALA NAIDU Vs. B SOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 5-1-2004, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, West and South, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application LA. No.2840 of 2003, filed by the petitioners in O.S. No.932 of 2002, for calling the document, namely carbon copy of the Memorandum of Settlement Deed lying with the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, who is one of the defendants in the suit is that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. According to them, the suit schedule property belongs to one Anantha Ram, who died leaving behind him, his wife Sattemma as legal heir. Subsequently, Sattemma died. Anantha Ram and Sattemma died childless. Anantha Ram is having one brother and sister. After the death of Anantha Ram and Sattemma, the property devolved upon their legal representatives. There was a settlement among the legal heirs, and a Memorandum of Settlement Deed was executed on 18-12- 1993, and a carbon copy thereof was filed before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District. According to the petitioners, since the date of execution of the Memorandum of Settlement Deed, they have become the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, and the said Memorandum of Settlement Deed is necessary for adjudicating the matter. Stating so, they filed the above LA. to call for the copy of the Memorandum of Settlement Deed, which is lying with the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District. On the other hand, the respondents, who are the plaintiffs in the suit, filed counter stating that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District, issued a certificate stating that the carbon copy of the Memorandum of Settlement is lying with him. It was contended that the carbon copy cannot be marked in evidence, and as such, there is no necessity for calling for the same for adjudicating the matter.

(3.) The Court below, considering the rival contentions, held that when the original is not lying with the Mandal Revenue Officer, the carbon copy, even if called for, cannot be marked in evidence, and holding so, dismissed the LA.