T YOGAIAH NAIDU Vs. MOHD LATEEFULLAH SHAREEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions are between the same parties, and arise out of the same suit. Hence, they are dealt with, under a common judgment.

(2.) THE respondent filed O. S. No. 638 of 2006 in the Court of the IV Senior Civil judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioners, for the relief of perpetual injunction. The subject-matter of the suit is an item of urban property. The respondent asserted title upon it, and alleged that the petitioners are interfering with his possession over it, without any basis. The petitioners, on the other hand, claimed independent title, in respect of that property, on the strength of a purchase made by their predecessor -in -title, by name Sri T. Ramaiah Chowdary, in an auction conducted by the Rehabilitation commissioner, Mumbai (for short, 'the commissioner' ).

(3.) THE petitioners filed I. A. No. 1086 of 2008, under Section 65 of the Indian evidence Act, with a prayer to permit them to lead secondary evidence, by filing a certified copy of the sale certificate, dated 21-01-1963. Obviously, with a view to prove the sale certificate, dated 21-01-1963, they filed I. A. No. 1158 of 2008, under Order XVI rule 6 read with Section 151 of C. P. C. , with a prayer to summon the corrigendum dated 10-12-1965, as well as the records relating to the sale certificate dated 21 -01 -1963, from the office of the District Registrar, hyderabad, as well as the Joint Registrar, banjara Hills. The applications were opposed by the respondent. It was urged that the certificate relied upon by the petitioners cannot be treated as secondary evidence, nor does it form part of the record of the registration, in the City of Hyderabad. An objection was also raised, on the ground that the document was not registered in accordance with law, and that it is not stamped. The trial Court dismissed both the applications through separate orders, dated 19-11-2008. C. R. P. No. 5796 of 2008 is filed against the order in I. A. No. 1158 of 2008, and C. R. P. No. 33 of 2009 is filed against the order in I. A. No. 1086 of 2008.