APHC010395442003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3397]

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA

KRISHNA RAO

APPEAL SUIT NO: 4145/2003

Between:

D. Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy ...APPELLANT

AND

Smt D Hanumanthamma and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. K L N SWAMY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA

2. H PRAHALADA REDDY

The Court made the following:

Reserved on 29.01.2026

Pronounced on 18.02.2026

Uploaded on 18.02.2026

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024

In/And

APPEAL SUIT No.4145 of 2003

JUDGMENT:

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short

„the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellant/plaintiff challenging the Decree and

Judgment, dated 06.08.2003, in O.S.No.55 of 1996 passed by the learned

Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, [for short „the trial Court’]. The Respondents

herein are the defendants in the said Suit.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the

defendants in O.S.No.55 of 1996 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge,

Adoni.

3. Originally, the appellant/plaintiff herein filed the suit in O.S.No.55 of

1996 against defendant Nos.1 to 3, seeking for partition of the plaint schedule

properties into two halves and to allot one such share to the plantiff.

4. Both parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before

the trial Court.

5. The case of the appellant/plaintiff as per the plaint averments in

O.S.No.55 of 1996, in brief, is as follows:

The plaintiff is the son of D. Hanuma Reddy, the defendant No.1 is his

stepmother, and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are his step sisters. The plaintiff

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

pleaded that he, his mother, and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are living jointly and

Hanuma Reddy is managing the joint family properties. While so, on

17.01.1993, the said Hanuma Reddy died and after his death, differences had

arisen between the parties and the plaintiff demanded his separate share, for

which the defendants had agreed in the presence of the elders, but they are

postponing doing the same. The plaintiff further pleaded that on 12.01.1996,

the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant No.2 for which the

defendant No.2 had given a false reply and did not come forward for partition

of the schedule property, as such the plaintiff is constrained to file the present

suit.

6. The case of the defendant No.1 as per the written statement filed by the

defendant No.1, which was adopted by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 is as

follows:

The defendant No.1 pleaded that the plaintiff has to prove that Jayasree

is the legally wedded wife and the plaintiff is the son of late Hanuma Reddy.

The defendant No.1 pleaded that the plaintiff and Jayasree are strangers to

the family of Hanuma Reddy, the said Hanuma Reddy is the husband of the

defendant No.1, and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the daughters of the

defendant No.1 and Hanuma Reddy. The defendant No.1 further pleaded that

she and her daughters, i.e., the defendant Nos.2 and 3, are the only legal

representatives of late Hanuma Reddy and due to the differences, Hanuma

Reddy and the defendants have effected partition in respect of the properties

fallen to the share of Hanuma Reddy under the registered partition deed dated

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

19.02.1971. The defendant No.1 further pleaded that since the date of

partition, the defendants are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the

property and they have sold some lands to third parties and surrendered

Ac.17.64 cents of land under the Land Ceiling Act. The defendant No.1 further

pleaded that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 have taken one share each by oral

partition and the pattadar passbooks were also issued in favour of the

defendant Nos.2 and 3 and they are paying the land revenue and they have

perfected their title by adverse possession. Therefore, the defendants prayed

to dismiss the suit with costs.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following

issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is the son of late Hanuma Reddy by Smt. Jayasree

Reddy?

2) Whether the prior partition pleaded by defendants is true and was acted

upon?

3) Whether the defendants have perfected their right over the plaint

schedule properties by adverse possession?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any share in the plaint schedule

properties and to seek the partition of the plaint schedule properties?

5) To what relief?

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

8. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff,

P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-16 were marked. On behalf

of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-4 were

marked. Ex.X-1 and Ex.X-2 were also marked.

9. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides,

the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs vide its judgment, dated

06.08.2003, against which the present appeal is preferred by the

appellant/plaintiff in the suit, questioning the decree and judgment passed by

the trial Court.

10. The application in I.A.No.1 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner/appellant

with a prayer to receive certain documents as additional evidence and the

application I.A.No.2 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner/appellant to direct the

respondents to come forward for DNA test in A.S.No.4145 of 2003.

11. Heard Sri K.L.N.Swamy, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and

Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned Counsel for the

respondents/defendants.

12. Now, in deciding the present appeal, the points that arise for

determination are as follows:

1) Whether the appellant/plaintiff proved that he is the son of late

D.Hanuma Reddy?

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any share in the plaint schedule

properties? To what extent?

3) Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit filed by

the appellant/plaintiff?

13. Point Nos.1 and 2:

Whether the appellant/plaintiff proved that he is the son of late

D.Hanuma Reddy?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any share in the plaint schedule

properties? To what extent?

The plaintiff pleaded in the plaint itself that he is the son of D. Hanuma

Reddy, born through his 2nd wife Jayasree Reddy, who is none other than the

mother of the plaintiff. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff and Jayasree

Reddy are strangers to the family of D. Hanuma Reddy and the plaintiff and

Jayasree Reddy have no relationship with D. Hanuma Reddy. The paternity of

the plaintiff is seriously disputed by the defendants. Therefore, it is for the

plaintiff to prove that he is the son of late D. Hanuma Reddy.

14. Admittedly, the plaintiff did not state the alleged factum of marriage of

his mother with Hanuma Reddy in the plaint. Though the mother of the

plaintiff/P.W.2 is alive, she did not depose about the date and month of the

marriage and the persons who attended the marriage. There is no whisper in

the plaint that the alleged marriage of Hanuma Reddy with the mother of the

plaintiff was performed, at which place and also the date and month of the

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

alleged marriage. The defendant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of Hanuma

Reddy and she is alive during the pendency of the suit. It is not the case of the

appellant that Hanuma Reddy obtained divorce from the defendant No.1 and

subsequently, he married his mother. The mother of the plaintiff is examined

as P.W.2, she simply stated in her evidence that during the year 1968 at

Tirumala Hills she married Hanuma Reddy. Except the self-serving statement

of P.W.2, there is no other evidence to show about the factum of marriage of

P.W.2 with Hanuma Reddy. As stated supra, Hanuma Reddy did not obtain

any divorce from the defendant No.1. Moreover, the plaintiff stated in his

evidence itself that the marriage of P.W.2 with Hanuma Reddy was performed

in the year 1965, which is quite contra to the statement given by P.W.2. The

defendant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of Hanuma Reddy and the same is

undisputed by the appellant, there is no whisper in the evidence of P.W.2

about the date and month of the alleged marriage of P.W.2 with Hanuma

Reddy and also about the names of the persons who attended the alleged

marriage of P.W.2 with Hanuma Reddy. Though P.W.2 admitted in her

evidence in cross examination that her brother attended the marriage, she

further reiterated that her brother is no more. According to P.W.2, her mother

gave a sworn statement before the Magistrate at Hyderabad that P.W.2

married Hanuma Reddy and gave birth to a male child. But, for the reasons

best known to P.W.2, her mother is not examined as a witness before the trial

Court. Though P.W.2 is alive during the pendency of the suit, she failed to

examine her mother, family members, or neighbors of P.W.2 to prove the

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

alleged factum of marriage with Hanuma Reddy and that they lived together

as husband and wife.

15. As stated supra, the burden heavily lies on the appellant/plaintiff to

prove that he is born to Hanuma Reddy and the paternity of the plaintiff with

Hanuma Reddy itself is strongly disputed by the defendants. It is an admitted

fact by the appellant that the defendant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of

Hanuma Reddy and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are none other than the

daughters of the defendant No.1 and Hanuma Reddy. The plaintiff relied on

his self-testimony as P.W.1 and also relied on the evidence of his mother as

P.W.2. P.W.1 admits in his evidence in cross-examination that his mother

married his father at Tirupati in the year 1965, whereas P.W.2, who is none

other than the mother of the plaintiff, stated that her marriage with Hanuma

Reddy was performed in the year 1968. Furthermore, she admitted that she

applied for long leave for five (05) years after her marriage with Hanuma

Reddy and she resided at Joharapuram. Whereas, P.W.1 admits that they

have resided at Joharapuram for two (02) years and in order to prove the

marriage of P.W.2, he has not filed any document such as marriage

invitations, photos, etc., to show that his mother married Hanuma Reddy. But,

for the reasons best known to either P.W.1 or P.W.2, they did not produce any

evidence to prove the factum of marriage of Hanuma Reddy with P.W.2.

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

16. The plaintiff relied on Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-16. Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 are

exchange of notices by both the parties, Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4 are encumbrance

certificates, and Ex.A-5 is the voters list. The law is well settled that “voters list

is prepared on the statement and particulars furnished by such person. It is in

the nature of self-serving, it is not safe to place much reliance upon it”. As

stated supra, the defendants are seriously disputing the paternity of the

appellant, therefore, what prevented the appellant to produce oral evidence to

prove that he is the son of late Hanuma Reddy, and that his mother and the

said Hanuma Reddy married and lived as wife and husband. Ex.A-5 is the

voters list of Alur constituency in the year 1993. As per Ex.X-1, Hanuma

Reddy is residing at Adoni, and undergoing treatment since ten (10) years.

Ex.X-1 is addressed to the Regional Director of Medical & Health by P.W.2,

but both Adoni and Alur Assembly constituencies are different. The evidentiary

value of the voters list of 1993 of another constituency is also of

inconsequential nature. Moreover, the entries in the voters list do not create

any relationship nor do they destroy the existing one, and it is only a piece of

corroborative evidence, but the same may be rebutted by the other evidence,

which may be direct or circumstantial. But, in the case at hand, the same is

missing.

17. The appellant relied on Ex.A-6 and Ex.A-7 affidavits of Annamma and

Hanuma Reddy. I have perused Ex.A-6 and Ex.A-7. Ex.A-6 is an alleged

affidavit said to have been given by M. Annamma on 14.04.1971, before the

Magistrate at Hyderabad. One M.D. Rajasekhar signed as witness in the said

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

affidavit and the residential address of Annamma is shown as 1-7-173,

Bakaram, Musheerabad. Ex.A-7 is another alleged affidavit said to have been

given by late Hanuma Reddy on 14.07.1971 and Annamma signed as a

witness in the said affidavit and the residential address of Hanuma Reddy is

shown as 5-1-289, Gowliguda, Hyderabad. It is not at all the case of the

appellant or P.W.2 that Hanuma Reddy or the grandmother of the plaintiff

stayed at Hyderabad and moreover, those two alleged affidavits are dated

14.04.1971, which are much prior to the filing of the suit, but those are not

filed along with the plaint and only the exchange of notices alone are filed

along with the plaint. Neither Ex.A-5, Ex.A-6, nor Ex.A-7 are yet filed along

with the plaint. Moreover, the parties are residing at Kurnool District, therefore,

the appellant has to explain why and how they have given the alleged

affidavits at Hyderabad, and moreover, Ex.A-6 and Ex.A-7 are self-serving

affidavits. As per Ex.B-1 partition deed dated 19.02.1971, there were existing

disputes in the family of Hanuma Reddy with the defendants and these two

(02) alleged affidavits are said to have been given on 14.04.1971, i.e.,

subsequent to the disputes aroused in the family of the late Hanuma Reddy.

Therefore, the same are of little relevance, moreover, the same are self-

serving statements of Hanuma Reddy and Annamma. Hanuma Reddy was no

more and he died much prior to the filing of the suit. There is nothing in the

evidence of P.W.2, whether her mother Annamma was alive or not. Moreover,

Rajasekhar, who signed as witness in Ex.A-6, was not at all examined by the

plaintiff.

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

18. The appellant also relied on Ex.A-8 Gazette Notification issued by the

Government. As per the case of P.W.2, she is working as a staff nurse in the

Government General Hospital at Kurnool in the year 1961. Moreover, Ex.A-8

shows Devanamma changed her name as Jayasree Reddy, therefore, Ex.A-8

is nowhere helpful to prove the paternity of the appellant.

19. The appellant relied on Ex.A-9 SSC certificate. As seen from Ex.A-9,

the name, date of birth, and father‟s name of the candidate in the said

certificate have been corrected with pen and made initials. The official who

made the initials has not fixed his seal at the corrections in the said alleged

Ex.A-9. The reason for such alterations and corrections on Ex.A-9 with regard

to the name of the candidate, father‟s name of the candidate, and date of birth

of the candidate is unexplained by the appellant. At least, the appellant has to

summon the officials of the Board of Secondary Education to prove who made

the initials on the Ex.A-9 SSC certificate, because the name of D.

Vijayasekhar Reddy was corrected as Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy with pen and the

name of Bala Naga Reddy is also corrected as Hanuma Reddy with pen, and

the date of birth in words and figures in Ex.A-9 is also corrected as 12.06.1969

from 20.06.1969. Therefore, without examining the officials of the SSC Board,

Ex.A-9 cannot be considered as a certificate of the appellant.

20. The appellant relied on Ex.A-10. Ex.A-10 is the alleged letter dated

02.03.1996, addressed by the Superintendent, Government General Hospital,

Kurnool, to the Municipal Corporation, Kurnool, based on the representation

given by P.W.2. In the said Ex.A-10 letter, it was stated that Devanamma, C/o.

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

Hanuma Reddy, Staff Nurse, G.G.H., Kurnool, the date of admission in the

hospital for delivery is 06.06.1969 and she delivered on 12.06.1969 at 4.45

a.m. It does not contain whether the said child is a male child or a female

child. The mentioning of the name of Devanamma, C/o. Hanuma Reddy, but

not W/o. Hanuma Reddy, also creates a doubt about the case of the

appellant. As could be seen from Ex.A-10, it is the letter said to have been

addressed in the year 1996, Ex.A-10 is not a public document under Section

76 of the Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, a birth certificate is a public

document and it must necessarily be proved as per the procedure prescribed

under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, but the same is missing in the

present case.

21. Ex.A-11 to Ex.A-15 are the registered sale deeds and those are in no

way connected to prove the paternity of the appellant. Ex.A-16 is unconnected

to prove the paternity of the appellant. Ex.X-1 and Ex.X-2 are the letters

alleged to have been addressed by P.W.2 and Hanuma Reddy respectively

and those are undated, without acknowledgments of being sent or the postal

receipts issued by the Postal Authorities, therefore, those Ex.X-1 and Ex.X-2

cannot be considered. In the absence of those documents, the alleged letters

have no evidentiary value.

22. Admittedly, no evidence is produced by the appellant to show that his

mother married Hanuma Reddy as the 2nd wife. The marriage of Hanuma

Reddy with the defendant No.1 is subsisting, and the defendant No.1 is alive

during the pendency of the suit. Moreover, no positive evidence is produced

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

by the appellant to show that the appellant was born to P.W.2 through

Hanuma Reddy. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that his mother married

Hanuma Reddy and he born to P.W.2 through Hanuma Reddy.

23. The respondents relied on Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-4. Ex.B-1 is the registration

extract of the partition deed dated 19.02.1971. The plaintiff/P.W.1 admits in

his evidence in cross-examination itself that during the lifetime of Hanuma

Reddy, he, his brothers, and his father had a partition for joint family

properties and subsequently, Hanuma Reddy and the defendant Nos.1 to 3

also partitioned their joint family properties during the year 1971 under a

registered partition deed dated 19.02.1971, and Hanuma Reddy expired

during the year 1993. The plaintiff pleaded about the properties standing in the

name of Hanuma Reddy as on the date of the death of Hanuma Reddy.

Therefore, it is evident that the plaintiff is aware of the registered partition held

between Hanuma Reddy and the defendants.

24. As per the case of the appellant, he was born on 12.06.1969 and the

registered partition between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 3 has

taken place on 19.02.1971, i.e., two (02) years after the birth of the appellant,

and by the date of the registered partition deed, the defendant Nos.2 and 3

were minors. The defendants relied on Ex.B-3 and Ex.B-4, the said

proceedings reveal that Hanuma Reddy gave his evidence before the Land

Reforms Tribunal, Adoni, in the year 1975, that he had no sons and had only

two (02) daughters. The said Hanuma Reddy during his lifetime gave

evidence before the Land Reforms Tribunal at Adoni, that lands were

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

partitioned among himself, his wife, and his two minor daughters, i.e.,

defendant Nos.1 to 3, and he had no sons. As stated supra, the said land

acquisition proceedings relates to the year 1975, much subsequent to the

alleged 2nd marriage of Hanuma Reddy with P.W.2 and after the birth of the

plaintiff. Had there been any truth in the case of the appellant, the said

Hanuma Reddy certainly would have disclosed the alleged factum of marriage

with P.W.2 and also the birth of P.W.1. Therefore, the Court has to give much

weight to the evidence given by Hanuma Reddy in the year 1975 in land

acquisition proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal.

25. As seen from the plaint averments, the plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that

he is the son of D.Hanuma Reddy, born through his 2nd wife Smt. Jayasree

Reddy, who is the mother of the plaintiff. He further pleaded that he, his

mother, and the defendant Nos.1 to 3 were living jointly, and Hanuma Reddy

was managing the joint family properties. Absolutely, no evidence is produced

by the plaintiff to prove that he, his mother, and the defendant Nos.1 to 3 lived

jointly. In the plaint itself, it was recited that the plaintiff is residing at Adoni,

whereas the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are residing at Joharapuram Village; both

places are situated in different Mandals. The appellant failed to prove that he

is the legal representative of Hanuma Reddy along with the defendant Nos.1

to 3. The appellant pleaded in the plaint that subsequently, after the death of

Hanuma Reddy, differences arose between the plaintiff and the defendants,

but the appellant failed to prove the alleged differences that occurred

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

subsequent to the death of Hanuma Reddy between the plaintiff and the

defendants.

26. Another important circumstance to disbelieve the case of the appellant

is that the plaintiff admits that there is a registered partition between Hanuma

Reddy and the defendant Nos.1 to 3 under a registered partition deed dated

19.02.1971, and some alienations were affected by Hanuma Reddy, and the

purchasers are in the possession of some of the plaint schedule property, and

the same is admitted by the plaintiff in his evidence in cross-examination itself.

But for the reasons best known to the appellant, the purchasers are not added

as parties to the suit for partition. There is no whisper in the plaint itself that

some of the properties are in the possession of 3

rd

parties/alienees, in view of

the alienations made by Hanuma Reddy. The alienations and possession of

3

rd

parties in respect of some of the plaint schedule property prior to the suit

are not pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint, and the alienees are also not

joined as parties in the suit. The aforesaid events clearly reveal that the

plaintiff suppressed the truth and approached the Court with false theories for

seeking relief of partition of the plaint schedule property. “The principle of

finality of litigation cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity

that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants.

The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties.

One, who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands.” As stated

supra, in the case at hand, the plaintiff approached the Court with unclean

hands for seeking the relief of partition of the plaint schedule property.

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

27. In the case at hand, as per the own admission of the appellant/plaintiff,

some of the plaint schedule properties are in the possession of the 3rd parties

under the registered sale deeds Ex.A-11 to Ex.A-15, which are dated

12.04.1984, 02.07.1985, 05.07.1982, 12.04.1984, 02.07.1985 respectively;

these are much prior to the institution of the suit. As stated supra, the present

suit for partition is filed by the plaintiff in the year 1996. Therefore, the suit

itself is defective for non-joinder of necessary parties.

28. In a case of Vemuganti Venkata Kalyani Vs. Nyayapathi

Padmavathamma and Others

1

, the Composite High Court of Andhra

Pradesh, at Hyderabad, held as follows:

“19. Though no issue was framed by the trial Court, as to the non-joinder of necessary

parties, it is, however, evident from the facts of the case that much before the suit

came to be filed, half of the suit schedule property was sold, under Ex.B-11, and deed

of settlement executed on the next day, through Ex.B-12. Substantial rights had

accrued to the parties to the said document. Whatever may have been the justification

for the plaintiff, in not impleading the purchaser under Ex.B-11, and beneficiary under

Ex.B-12, when she filed the suit, she ought to have taken necessary steps, at least,

when she came to know about the same, through the written statement filed by the first

defendant. Grant of any relief in favour of the plaintiff, would certainly have its impact

on the said persons, and they are necessary parties to the suit. Therefore, the suit is

defective, for non-joinder of necessary parties also.”

In the present case, the plaintiff has knowledge about the alienations in

respect of some of the plaint schedule properties, and he himself filed the

registration extracts of sale deeds and got exhibited as Ex.A-11 to Ex.A-15,

which are dated 12.04.1984, 02.07.1985, 05.07.1982, 12.04.1984, 02.07.1985

respectively. The suit was instituted in the year 1996, but the plaintiff failed to

1

2005 (6) ALD 204

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

implead the alienees as parties to the suit, which is against law. Any relief

granted in favour of the plaintiff in the absence of alienees would certainly

have its own impact on the alienees/3

rd

parties.

29. In a case of Rangammal Vs. Kuppuswami and Ors.

2

, the Apex Court

held as follows:

“31. It hardly needs to be highlighted that in a suit for partition, it is expected of the

plaintiff to include only those properties for partition to which the family has clear title

and unambiguously belong to the members of the joint family which is sought to be

partitioned and if someone else's property meaning thereby disputed property is

included in the schedule of the suit for partition, and the same is contested by a third

party who is allowed to be impleaded by order of the trial court, obviously it is the

plaintiff who will have to first of all discharge the burden of proof for establishing that

the disputed property belongs to the joint family which should be partitioned excluding

someone who claims that some portion of the joint family property did not belong to the

plaintiff's joint family in regard to which decree for partition is sought.”

30. There is no pleading in the plaint about the alienations made by

Hanuma Reddy, but alienations made by Hanuma Reddy under registered

sale deeds Ex.A-11 to Ex.A-15 in respect of some of the plaint schedule

properties are in the possession of 3

rd

parties. The plaintiff approached the

Court with a specific plea that he is a coparcener and he is a member of the

joint family of Hanuma Reddy, he, himself, and the defendants are in the joint

possession of the plaint schedule property. But the same is not proved by the

appellant. There is no cogent evidence to prove the alleged jointness in

between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 3, but the plaintiff approached

the Court with the specific plea that he is in joint possession with the

2

Manu/SC/0620/2011

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

defendants and filed a suit for partition and paid fixed Court fees of Rs.100/-

under Section 34 (2) of the A.P. Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. In the

plaint also, it is pleaded that the plaintiff, his mother Jayasree, and the

defendant Nos.1 to 3 are living jointly and Hanuma Reddy was managing the

joint family. As stated supra, the plaintiff is residing at a different place, and

the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are residing at different place.

31. To prove the case of the appellant, the appellant/plaintiff relied on

Ex.A-5 voter list and the affidavits of M.Annamma and Hanuma Reddy viz.,

Ex.A-6, Ex.A-7, and Ex.A-9 SSC certificate, Ex.A-10 letter pertaining to the

birth of the plaintiff; these are not filed along with the plaint. As stated supra,

Ex.A-5 to Ex.A-7, Ex.A-9 and Ex.A-10 are self-serving statements, and Ex.A-9

contains several corrections with pen, viz., the name of the candidate, the

father of the candidate, and the date of birth of the candidate are corrected

with pen. To prove the said corrections and who made them, the appellant

failed to summon the original registers to know the correct facts about the

name of the candidate, the father of the candidate, and the date of birth of the

candidate, but the same was not done by the appellant. Moreover, the

defendants relied on Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-4, and it is evident that there was a

registered partition deed between Hanuma Reddy and the defendants, after

the birth of the appellant, and six (06) years after the birth of the appellant,

Hanuma Reddy gave evidence before the Land Reforms Tribunal that the

defendant No.1 is his wife, and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are his minor

daughters; except them, he is not having any sons. Therefore, the said

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

evidence cannot be ignored. Moreover, as stated supra, the paternity of the

plaintiff is seriously disputed by the defendants in the written statement itself,

but for reasons best known to the appellant, he failed to produce any cogent

evidence before the Court to prove the alleged marriage of P.W.2 with

Hanuma Reddy, and he also failed to prove that he is the son of Hanuma

Reddy.

32. For the aforesaid reasons, the appellant failed to prove the alleged

marriage of his mother with Hanuma Reddy, and he also failed to prove that

he is the son of Hanuma Reddy; the paternity of the appellant is not proved by

the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the plaint

schedule property.

Accordingly, the point Nos.1 and 2 are answered against the appellant.

I.A.No.01 of 2024:

33. The application under I.A.No.01 of 2024 is filed by the

petitioner/appellant under Order XLI Rule 27 and under Section 151 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, with a prayer to permit the petitioner/appellant to

receive additional evidence as prayed in the affidavit of the petitioner. The

case of the petitioner is that Hanuma Reddy originally married respondent

No.1 Smt. Late T.Hanumanthamma, and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are their

daughters, again, the father of the petitioner married the petitioner‟s mother,

and out of their wedlock, the petitioner was born on 12.06.1969. The petitioner

pleaded that his mother worked at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad,

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

and the petitioner studied up to Intermediate, and his father‟s name is

recorded in the entire school records, including his Secondary School

Certificate, as Devanabanda Hanuma Reddy.

34. The petitioner further pleaded that after searching the old files, he found

his original Transfer Certificate issued by his school authority in the year 2005,

and also he found the Gazette Publication dated 13.11.1969, wherein the

name of the petitioner‟s mother was changed to Jayasree Reddy, and in the

original service record of the petitioner‟s mother, the particulars of change of

name of his mother were duly entered. The petitioner further pleaded that

these documents are essential to prove the petitioner‟s parentage, but due to

lack of knowledge and guidance, he could not secure the relevant documents

at the proper time, and as such, the petitioner requested that an opportunity

may be given to him to receive the documents as additional evidence.

35. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a counter by denying the material

allegations leveled in the petition and further contended that the delay in filing

the interlocutory application is not properly explained by the petitioner, and

there are no merits in the interlocutory application vide I.A.No.01 of 2024 filed

by the petitioner/appellant, and the same may be dismissed.

36. Order XLI Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code reads as under:

27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.-

(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional

evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if—

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

(a) the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has

refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or

(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes

that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence

was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of

due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree

appealed against was passed, or

(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or

any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment,

or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow

such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be

examined.

(2) Whenever additional evidence is allowed to the produced, by an

Appellate Court, the court shall record the reason for its admission.

The general principle is that the appellate Court should not travel

outside the record of the trial Court and cannot take any evidence in appeal.

However, as an exception under Order XLI Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code,

enable the appellate Court to take evidence in exceptional circumstances

only. The proviso under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. permits the party to

produce additional evidence before the appellate Court provided it has to be

come under the ambit of Order XLI Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code.

37. The suit for partition was filed by the petitioner/appellant in the year

1996, and after completion of trial and on hearing both sides, the trial Court

dismissed the suit filed by the appellant on 06.08.2003, against which an

appeal was filed in the year 2003. The petitioner filed the present application

in the year 2024, i.e., after a lapse of 21 years. The document proposed to be

received as additional evidence is Andhra Pradesh Gazette Notification No.46,

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

dated 13.11.1969; it relates to the change of name of P.W.2, Devanamma, to

Jayasree Reddy. There is no mention in the said Gazette Notification that the

said Devanamma is the wife of Hanuma Reddy, and the said document is

marked as Ex.A-8 before the trial Court. Therefore, there is no need to mark

the same document before the Appellate Court again to be received as

additional evidence.

38. Another document, i.e., sought to be received as additional evidence, is

the copy of the Service Register containing relevant entries from the service

book of some of the pages pertaining to the petitioner‟s mother. The total

certified copy of the service register of P.W.2 is not filed. Here, the relationship

between the son and the mother, i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.2, is not in dispute, and

the marriage of the mother of the plaintiff with Hanuma Reddy is seriously

disputed by the defendants. To prove the marriage of the mother of the

plaintiff, the mother of the plaintiff/P.W.2 has to furnish the details of her

marriage, i.e., when her marriage was celebrated, date, month, and year of

the alleged marriage of P.W.2 with Hanuma Reddy. But there is no mention in

the plaint itself about the aforesaid details, viz., when the marriage of the

mother of the plaintiff was solemnized with Hanuma Reddy. Though the

mother of the plaintiff is examined as P.W.2, she also did not depose about

the date and month of her marriage with Hanuma Reddy. P.W.2 did not

depose about the solemnization of the marriage and also the persons who

attended the marriage in her evidence-in-chief. There is no explanation from

the plaintiff as to why the original service register was not summoned during

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

the course of trial, and why the employer of P.W.2 was not summoned to

prove the entries in the service register. Moreover, on the self-declaration

given by P.W.2, the name of the husband of P.W.2 could have been

mentioned in the service register of P.W.2, therefore, it is not an authenticated

document to prove the marriage of P.W.2 with Hanuma Reddy. Moreover, the

plaint recitals themselves go to show that the defendant No.1 is the legally

wedded wife of Hanuma Reddy, and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are none

other than the daughters of Hanuma Reddy and the defendant No.1. The

defendant No.1 is alive during the pendency of the suit. In the plaint itself, it

was recited that while the marriage of Hanuma Reddy with defendant No.1 is

subsisting, Hanuma Reddy married the mother of the plaintiff as a 2nd wife. It

is not at all the case of the plaintiff that after obtaining a divorce from the

defendant No.1, Hanuma Reddy married his mother, and the solemnization of

the marriage, date, month, and year of marriage is not at all stated by the

plaintiff in the plaint itself. Though the mother of P.W.1 is examined as P.W.2

during the course of trial, she did not depose in her evidence that her

husband‟s name is recorded in the service register. As stated supra, the suit

was disposed of on contest by the trial Court in the year 2003, and for the first

time after twenty-one (21) years of disposal of the main suit, the Xerox copy of

some of the pages of the service register is filed and sought to be received as

additional evidence. As stated supra, the entries in the service register are not

conclusive proof of the solemnization of marriage of Hanuma Reddy with

P.W.2. It is not at all the case of the plaintiff that the date, month, and year of

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

the solemnization of marriage of Hanuma Reddy with P.W.2 are mentioned in

the service register of P.W.2. As stated supra, there is no explanation from the

plaintiff as to why the original service register was not summoned during the

course of trial, and why the service register and employer of P.W.2 were not

summoned to elicit information about the alleged marriage of P.W.2 with

Hanuma Reddy. The delay of more than twenty one (21) years in filing the

present application is not yet properly explained by the petitioner.

39. Another proposed document to be received as additional evidence is

the copy of the Transfer Certificate said to have been issued by the school

authorities to the plaintiff. The said copy of the transfer certificate discloses

that on 09.03.1984, the student actually left the school. The application for the

transfer certificate was made on 04.01.2005 that too after two years of

disposal of the main suit, and the transfer certificate is said to have been

issued on 05.01.2005. The personal marks of identification are not yet

mentioned in Column No.15 of the transfer certificate, and Column No.20 of

the transfer certificate is also kept blank. As stated supra, though it is said to

have been obtained on 05.01.2005, it was filed after a lapse of nineteen (19)

years, and the said delay is unexplained by the petitioner. Moreover, it does

not contain particulars about who admitted the plaintiff in the school and

whether Hanuma Reddy gave a declaration before the school authorities that

the plaintiff is his son; those are crucial aspects to decide the subject matter of

the suit, and the same are missing in the alleged transfer certificate produced

by the petitioner in the present application.

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

40. Another document proposed to be received as additional evidence is

the duplicate Secondary School Certificate said to have been issued in the

month of April, 2022. As stated supra, the original Secondary School

Certificate is filed and marked as Ex.A-9 before the trial Court; it contains the

name of the candidate, the father‟s name of the candidate, and date of birth of

the candidate, which were altered with pen, and the said Ex.A-9 is disbelieved

by the trial Court. I have compared the alleged duplicate Secondary School

Certificate with Ex.A-9. In Ex.A-9, it was mentioned that the SSC examination

was held in the month of March, 1984, but in the duplicate Secondary School

Certificate, it was mentioned that the SSC examination was held in the month

of April, 1984. Moreover, the issuance of the duplicate certificate would arise

only when the original certificate was lost. It is not the case of the appellant

that the original Secondary School Certificate was lost, and he applied for a

duplicate Secondary School Certificate. Moreover, the proposed alleged

duplicate Secondary School Certificate is not an exact duplicate of Ex.A-9. In

Ex.A-9, it was not mentioned to which college/school the candidate belongs,

but in the duplicate Secondary School Certificate, it was mentioned that the

candidate belongs to G.J.C., Pathikonda..

41. In a case of Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin

3

, the Apex Court held

as follows:

“49. An application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is to be considered at the time of

hearing of appeal on merits so as to find whether the documents and/or the evidence

sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. The

3

(2012) 8 SCC 148

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue

on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such

evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the Appellate

Court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment

or for any other substantial cause. The true test, therefore is, whether the Appellate

Court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into

consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced.”

42. It is well settled that the generally parties are not entitled to produce

additional evidence, oral or documentary at Appellate stage unless:

1. Trial Court refused to admit the evidence which ought to have been

admitted.

2. Party could not produce evidence at trial stage inspite of his due

diligence.

3. When Appellate Court requires any document or witness for

pronouncement of judgment or any other substantial clause.

If a party does not fulfill the aforesaid conditions, allowing a party to

adduce additional evidence at appellate stage would be against the spirit of

the Civil Procedure Code. It is also well settled that the parties cannot be

allowed to fill the lacunae at Appellate stage.

43. As stated supra, there is no pleading in the plaint about the date, month,

and year of the marriage and solemnization of marriage of the mother of the

plaintiff with Hanuma Reddy, and there is no mention in the plaint about the

details contained in the service register of P.W.2. Moreover, in the plaint, it

was mentioned that the defendant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of Hanuma

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

Reddy, and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 were born to Hanuma Reddy and the

defendant No.1 is alive during the pendency of the suit. It is well settled that in

the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, documents produced by the parties

cannot be considered, and it is also equally settled that no party should be

permitted to travel beyond its pleading, and that all necessary and material

facts shall be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. For the

aforesaid reasons, there are no merits in the interlocutory application vide

I.A.No.1 of 2024.

I.A.No.2 of 2024:

44. The petitioner, who is the appellant, pleaded that if the DNA test is

conducted and compared with the DNA of the petitioner‟s step-sisters, i.e.,

respondent Nos.2 and 3, the fact of the petitioner‟s parentage would be

established, and that the petitioner prayed to direct any one of the respondent

Nos.2 and 3 to come forward for the DNA test.

45. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a counter by denying the material

allegations leveled in the petition, and they prayed for dismissal of I.A.No.2 of

2024.

46. The suit for partition was filed by the petitioner/appellant in the year

1996, and after completion of trial and on hearing both sides, the trial Court

dismissed the suit filed by the appellant on 06.08.2003, against which an

appeal was filed in the year 2003. The present interlocutory application was

filed by the petitioner in the year 2024, i.e., on 22.11.2024, after a lapse of

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

twenty one (21) years at Appellate stage to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3

to attend for the DNA test.

47. In a case of K.PALANISAMY Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.,

4

the

High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) held as follows:

“9. The petitioner failed to prove that how a DNA test between persons born of

different mothers would prove their biological connection with the same father? In the

absence of Kali Naicker, a DNA test between half brothers will not prove their

paternity. The petitioner has failed to prove that a DNA test with an alleged half brother

will prove their paternity. This is only a civil case and through evidence and

documents, the case can be proved and the trial was already over and the case is

pending at the stage of arguments. Thought the case is filed in the year 2012, the

petitioner came forward with these petitions only in the year 2015 at the stage of

arguments. As the petitioner fail to prove that the DNA test between the alleged half

brothers will prove their paternity is not necessary.”

48. In the case at hand, as stated supra, the plaintiff approached the trial

Court seeking relief of partition of the plaint schedule property in the year

1996, and the trial Court, after a full-fledged trial and on hearing both sides,

dismissed the partition suit filed by the plaintiff in the year 2003. Aggrieved by

the same, the plaintiff preferred the first appeal before this Court in the year

2003. The petitioner filed the present application in the year 2024, i.e., after a

lapse of twenty-one (21) years, that too during the pendency of the first

appeal. The marriage of the mother of the plaintiff with Hanuma Reddy and

the paternity of the plaintiff is seriously disputed by the defendants. However,

the plaintiff did not plead in the plaint itself about the solemnization of

marriage, including the date, month, and year of the marriage of his mother

4

MANU/TN/1538/2019

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

with Hanuma Reddy. P.W.2 also did not depose in her evidence about the

date, and month of the marriage. The legal position in this regard is well

settled by the Apex Court in a case of Goutam Kundu Vs. State of West

Bengal (1993 SCC (3) 418). In the aforesaid case law, the Apex Court laid

down certain following parameters to decide whether a Court could order DNA

test for the purposes of Section 112:

1. that courts in India cannot order blood test as a matter of course;

2. wherever applications are made for such prayers in order to have roving

inquiry, the prayer for blood test cannot be entertained.

3. There must be a strong prima facie case in that the husband must

establish non-access in order to dispel the presumption arising under

Section 112 of the Evidence Act.

4. The court must carefully examine as to what would be the consequence

of ordering the blood test; whether it will have the effect of branding a

child as a bastard and the mother as an unchaste woman.

5. No one can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis.

50. Considering the legal position as stated supra and for the aforesaid

reasons, there are no merits in the present interlocutory application vide

I.A.No.2 of 2024.

Hence, the present interlocutory applications vide I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of

2024 are dismissed.

51. Point No.3:

VGKR, J.

AS_4145_2003

Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit filed by

the appellant/plaintiff?

In view of my findings in Point Nos.1 and 2, I am of the considered view

that after appreciation of entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge

came to right conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove that he is the son of

Hanuma Reddy and that he is not entitled to any share in the plaint schedule

property and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, I do not find

any illegality in the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court.

52. In the result, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 in A.S.No.4145 of 2003 and

A.S.No.4145 of 2003 are dismissed. Considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, each party do bear their own costs in the appeal.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall

stand closed

__________________________

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

Date: 18.02.2026

SRT