KESHAVA REDDY Vs. BAL REDDY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred questioning order dated 18.01.2012 in I.A. No. 1010 of 2011 in O.S. No. 161 of 2005 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. Revision petitioner herein is D1 in O.S. No. 161 of 2005 filed by respondents No. 9 and 10 for partition of plaint schedule properties. In the said suit, defendants No. 4 to 10 filed I.A. No. 1010 of 2011 contending that suit schedule lands are not the Hindu undivided joint family properties and that there was a partition in between father of D5 and D1 on 28.05.1979 which was signed in the presence of elders, but plaintiffs in collusion with D1 has filed the suit for partition with false claim and that the original document dated 28.05.1979 is in custody of D1 and Xerox copies were given to father of D5 and the said document is crucial for proper adjudication and therefore a direction be given to D1 to produce the said document dated 28.05.1979.

(2.) D1 filed his counter disputing the affidavit averments of petitioners and he specifically contended that there is no partition of their ancestral properties on 28.05.1979 as contended by defendants No. 4 to 10. He further stated that there is no collusion between himself and plaintiffs and there is no such original partition deed as contended by D4 to D7. It is also contended as no such partition took place, such document was never executed and that D1 never signed on such document, petitioners i.e., D4 to D10 failed to mention the date, place and time on which the original document alleged to have been given to him and the same is only invented. He stated that petition has to be dismissed as no such document is in existence.

(3.) On considering these contentions, trial Court held that no prejudice would be caused to D1, if he is directed to produce the document, and on that ground petition was ordered thereby D1 was directed to produce the document, dated 28.05.1979.