IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3424 of 2002 Between: Vikaruddin, s/o. Mahabub Ali, R/o. Achampet Mandal & Proper, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.Gulam Yaseen, s/o. late Gulam Hyder, r/o. Achampet Mandal & Proper, Mahabubnagar District. 2.The Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar District, Mahabubnagar District proper. 3.The Mandal Revenue Officer, Achampet Mandal & Proper, Mahabubnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.JASTI SURESH BABU FOR MR.K.MAHIPATHI RAO Counsel for Respondent No.1: SRI B.NARASIMHA SARMA Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3424 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Certiorari to quash orders dated 09.09.1997 and 25.08.2001 passed by respondent Nos.3 and 2 respectively. 2. Heard Sri Jasti Suresh Babu, learned counsel representing Sri K.Mahipathi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and perused the record. 3. The dispute pertains to an extent of Acs.13.38 gts. in Sy.No.375 of Achampet Village and Mandal. The petitioner and Gulam Hyder, the father of respondent No.1, are brothers. Their father Mahabub Ali originally held the said land. The petitioner’s case is that after the death of his father, the patta was mutated in the name of his brother Gulam Hyder, the father of respondent No.1. According to the petitioner, in a family arrangement between him and the father of respondent No.1, he is entitled to half share of the said property, therefore, he approached respondent No.3 for mutation of his name in the revenue record under the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The said application of the petitioner having been rejected, the petitioner ﬁled Revision Petition before respondent No.2, which was dismissed by him by order dated 25.08.2001. Both these orders are questioned in this writ petition. 4. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in O.S.No.9 of 1987 on the ﬁle of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagarkurnool, respondent No.1 categorically deposed that in an agreement entered into between his father and the petitioner, it was agreed that both of them will have equal share over the rights in lands covered by Sy.Nos.373, 375, 381 and 168, and respondent Nos.3 and 2 completely ignored this evidence produced by the petitioner before them. 5. Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No.1, strenuously contended that the petitioner was not a party to the said suit and that respondent No.3, having examined the revenue record and found that the name of the father of respondent No.1 was continuously shown in the records such as Khasra Pahani etc, refused to mutate the petitioner’s name in the revenue records and relegated the petitioner to avail the remedy of a civil suit and get his right declared. He, therefore, submitted that the order of respondent No.3, which is conﬁrmed in Revision by respondent No.2, does not suﬀer from any illegality. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 7. Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Evidence Act’) reads as under:- “Presumption as to documents produced as record of evidence:- Whenever any document is produced before any Court, purporting to be a record or memorandum of the evidence, or of any part of the evidence, given by a witness in a judicial proceeding or before any oﬃcer authorised by law to take such evidence, or to be a statement or confession by any prisoner or accused person, taken in accordance with law, and purporting to be signed by any Judge or Magistrate, or by any such oﬃcer as aforesaid, the Court shall presume- that the document is genuine; that any statement as to the circumstances under which it was taken, purporting to be made by the person signing it, are true, and that such evidence, statement or confession was duly taken. “ 8. Respondent No.1, in his deposition as PW.1 in O.S.No.9 of 1987 on the ﬁle of the Subordinate Judge at Nagarkurnool, stated as under:- “My father and his younger brother Vikaroddin entered into an agreement in March, 1968 in respect of the family properties. In the Khasra Pahani, the name of my father was entered into and therefore my father’s brother Vikaroddin asked about the same. Hence they entered into the agreement. In the said agreement, it is mentioned that both of them have equal rights in the lands covered by Sy.No.373, 375, 381 and 168. It was executed in the presence of Mohd. Ismail, Khaja Aleemuddin, Khaja Bale, Kamaloddin and Abdul Waheed. All of them signed the said document as witnesses. Ex.A-19 is the agreement. Ex.A-20 is the true translation of Ex.A-19 in English. Gulam Hyder and Vikaruddin are the parties to the agreement and they signed the document in the presence of the witnesses. Ex.A- 19/A is the signature of D-5 Kamaluddin, Ex.A-19/B is the signature of my father. Ex.A-19/C is the signature of Vikaruddin, my father’s younger brother. Except Abdul Waheb and D-5 Kamaluddin, the other attestors are no more.” It is not the case of respondent No.1 that he has not given the above-mentioned evidence. Therefore, by virtue of Section 80 of the Evidence Act, there is a presumption that the document produced by the petitioner regarding the evidence of respondent No.1 is genuine and the statement contained in the said document is true. Unless this presumption is rebutted by respondent No.1, on the strength of the evidence produced by him, the deposition of respondent No.1 stands as evidence in support of the plea of the petitioner that he is entitled to half share in the joint property held by the petitioner and the father of respondent No.1, and that by virtue of the agreement between the father of respondent No.1 and the petitioner, half of the extent of Ac.13.38 gts. in Sy.No.375 of Achampet Village fell to his share deserves to be accepted and the petitioner is entitled for mutation. In the face of this evidence produced by the petitioner, there was absolutely no need for respondent No.3 to examine the revenue record to come to a diﬀerent conclusion. Such a necessity would arise only if the deposition produced by the petitioner is found to be not genuine. As respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to consider this aspect in proper perspective, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 25.08.2001 passed by respondent No.2, conﬁrming order dated 09.09.1997 of respondent No.3, is quashed. The matter is remitted to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration of the claim of the petitioner, on the basis of the deposition of respondent No.1, who was examined as PW.1 in O.S.No.9 of 1987 on the ﬁle of the Subordinate Judge, Nagarkurnool. Respondent No.3 shall decide the issue afresh, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and respondent No.1, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 23.10.2008 v v