THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2825 OF 2011 Dated:18.08.2011 Between: Ramireddy Appalaswamy .. Petitioner And Ramireddy Tirupathi and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2825 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed O.S.No.126 of 2008 for cancellation of two registered settlement/gift deeds and one partition deed executed by him on 23.09.2005. He alleged that the defendants/respondents herein obtained these documents by misrepresentation or fraud. The defendants contested the suit inter alia pleading that the petitioner voluntarily executed all the three documents. An issue was framed to the effect that “whether the partition list dated 15.04.2004 is true, valid and binding as contended by the defendants?” The suit is in trial. The petitioner was examined as PW.1 and filed all the documents into the Court. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.71 of 2011 to reframe the above issue as under. Whether the plaintiff knowingly, voluntarily, with free will and volition executed all the three impugned documents bearing registration Nos.5019 of 2005, 5020 of 2005 and 5021 of 2005 of Samalkota Sub Registrar Office dated 23.09.2005 after the contents were read over and explained to him as contended by the defendants? The Court below dismissed the said application on 31.05.2011. Aggrieved by which, the present civil revision petition is filed. The counsel for the petitioner submits that while framing the issue, the Court below put the burden of proof on the petitioner whereas it has to be on the respondents to prove that there was a partition. The submission is misconceived. As observed by the trial Court, the petitioner went to the Court for cancellation of two gift deeds and one partition deed executed by him. Therefore, the burden is on the petitioner to prove the circumstances under which he was made to execute the documents. The documents are registered documents and they carry with them more evidentiary value unless proved otherwise. When the petitioner alleged that these three documents are obtained by the respondents by misrepresentation or fraud, the burden is on him to prove such allegations. The impugned order does not suffer from any error. The civil revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 18.08.2011 KH