THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.NO.6184 OF 2009 22ND DECEMBER, 2009 BETWEEN: ROKAM SRINIVASARAO .. PETITIONER AND CHIGURUPATI SRINIVASARAO AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.NO.6184 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 11.12.2009 passed in E.A.No.102 of 2009 in E.P.No.158 of 2009 in O.S.No.96 of 1979 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, whereby and where under the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in this revision. The petitioner claims that his father purchased the property under a registered sale deed for Rs.6.00 lakhs about 25 years ago. But, he did not place on record the registered sale deed under which he allegedly purchased the property. The petitioner while being examined as a witness admits of execution of no sale deed in proof of his father purchasing the property. The executing court considered this aspect in para 9 of the order impugned in this revision. The relevant portion of Para 9 of the order reads as under: “ 9. P.W.1 deposed in his evidence that his father purchased the property under registered sale deed from 1st respondent/decree holder Srinivasarao 25 years ago and ever since his father and himself have been in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. His father kept the title deeds in bank while obtaining loan to carryout repairs to the petition schedule house and as such he could not produce those title deeds. To shore up his contention he exhibited certificate of registration of motor cycle, consumer gas bond, gas book, house hold card, interview intimation of District Industries, Statement of Account of ING Vysya Bank, telephone bill, special notice got issued by Guntur Municipal Corporation. It was elicited in the cross-examination he did not enquire in whose name the petition schedule property was registered by Srinivasarao since those documents were deposited into bank. He enquired to obtain certified copy from the Registrar’s office and later he could know the property was not registered either in the name of Srinivasarao or in the name of his father Varahalu. He also admitted one Koteswararao is his father in law and as can be seen from the decree he is one of the defendants in the suit O.S.96/79 referred above. It probablises the respondents/decree holders contention that he is set up witness by his father in law to proscrastinate the proceedings. There is wide divergence in his evidence and pleadings since it was averred in the petition that his father purchased the property for Rs.6,00,000/- 25 years ago under a registered sale deed and whereas in the evidence he deposed on enquiry he could know that no sale deed was registered in favour of either the vendor of his father or his father. As can be seen from the petition, the petitioner was emphatic that the title deed was deposited in the bank to obtain loan and whereas in the evidence he deposed that no title deed was registered in the name of his father. It being immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- any document conferring title to the petitioner’s father should be a registered document. But the evidence of the petitioner divulges no such document was registered in regard to the petition schedule property in favour of his father. I therefore hold the petitioner failed to establish his right or interest in the petition schedule property. Registration of motorcycle, interview card or other documents wherein the address is furnished by the petitioner himself are self serving documents. Municipal Corporation issued notice to the address furnished by the petitioner and as such they cannot be treated as the document of either title or possession. Having taken a specific plea his father purchased the property under registered sale deed, it is incumbent on the petitioner to establish the said plea. But the petitioner candidly admitted that there is no such sale deed.” The petitioner having pleaded in the petition that he purchased the property under a registered sale deed, did not choose to place on record the registered sale deed as proof of purchasing the same. The petitioner is no other than son-in-law of one of the defendant viz., Koti Koteswara Rao. When he failed to place on record any title deeds as proof of purchasing the property the executing court is justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. The order impugned in this revision does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of section 115 of CPC. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. 22nd December, 2009. ( B.Seshasayana Reddy,J ) tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.NO.6184 OF 2009 22ND DECEMBER, 2009