MARTHALA JAYARAMI REDDY Vs. S. BHARATH BHUSHAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.2016 in I.A. No.2254 of 20016 in O.S. No.117 of 2007 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, where-under the learned Judge dismissed the petition filed under Order 13, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'C.P.C.) seeking sent for certain documents hereinafter referred.

(2.) The petitioner filed O.S.No.167 of 2004 seeking for declaration that the registered Sale Deed dated 27.12.2000 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant in respect of plaint schedule property is null and void. His case briefly was that he borrowed amounts from the brother-in-law of the defendant viz. S. Narsimha Reddy and could not repay the said debt due to financial constraints and at the mediation of the defendant, the plaintiff was constrained to execute another pronote for Rs.1,87,000.00 in favour of said Narsimha Reddy and some time thereafter, when Narsimha Reddy pressurized the plaintiff for repayment of money, the defendant could not pay the amount due to his financial crisis and at the time, the defendant intervened and induced him to execute a nominal sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in his favour so that the defendant would prevail upon Narsimha Reddy not to demand promissory note amount for some time and the defendant would re-convey the property to the plaintiff as and when the plaintiff paid back the amount to Narsimha Reddy. Believing his words, the plaintiff executed a nominal sale deed on 27.12.2000 in favour of the defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property. It is his further case that subsequently he discharged the promissory note amount of Rs.1,87,000.00 to Narsimha Reddy, but the said Narsimha Reddy did not return the promissory note stating that the said note was with the defendant. However, Narsimha Reddy filed a suit for recovery of the amount on the basis of the said promissory note. When the plaintiff asked the defendant, the defendant did not re-convey the sale deed property in his favour. Thus, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant and Narsimha Reddy cheated him. Hence, the suit for declaration that the sale deed was null and void.

(3.) The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint allegations. His case was that he purchased the suit property on 27.12.2000 for a valid consideration of Rs.28,000.00 and excepting the fact that the said S.Narsimha Reddy was the brother-in-law of the defendant, the defendant had nothing to do with the money transactions between plaintiff and Narsimha Reddy and the defendant never stood as mediator and he never induced the plaintiff to execute any pronote or any other document in favour of Narsimha Reddy or any other persons.