THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :3588 of 2009 ORDER: The revision petition is preferred by the petitioner against the order passed in the pending suit in O.S.78 of 2003 on 9.6.2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram. The petitioner is the 1st plaintiff. At the time of examination of the 1st defendant as a witness in chief, he offered to mark the sale agreement, for which the learned counsel for the plaintiffs objected on the ground that the same is an unregistered one. On that, the Court below having observed that basing on the document in question, the defendants are not claiming for any relief and they want to prove that they have been in possession of the property since 1960 and therefore, the purpose of marking the document is only a collateral purpose and as such, the said document is admissible in evidence only for the limited purpose of establishing possession of the defendants, held that the document in question is admissible in evidence for the purpose of substantiating the possession of the defendants. Having aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred by the petitioner-1st plaintiff. Heard the learned counsel and perused the entire material available on record. The material on record goes to show that the suit in question filed by the plaintiff is for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. In this regard, so as to claim their title by way of adverse possession, the defendants have relied upon the agreement of sale. As a matter of fact, the defendants are not claiming any relief basing on the said document. But, their endeavour in marking the said document, is only for collateral purpose as to their alleged possession from the year 1960 onwards. When once the suit is filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession, it is the duty caste upon the plaintiffs to prove their case in the first instance and then, the burden of proof shifts on to the defendants. Apart from that, the plaintiffs are always at liberty to adduce rebuttal evidence as to their claim by contradicting the evidence adduced on the other side. In this view of the matter, I feel that the reasoning assigned by the Court below while admitting the document in question in evidence for a limited purpose, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. This revision is as such liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed Dated: 13.8.2009 Gurc. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:3588 OF 2009 13.08.2009