Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Marthi Krishan vs Sunkari Narayanamma on 4 August, 2026
Date of reserved for orders : 27.07.2026
Date of pronouncement : 04.08.2026
Date of uploading : 0 .08.2026
APHC010553272025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 4th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2738/2025
Between:
1. MARTHI KRISHAN, S/O LATE RAMULU, AGED 63 YEARS, R/O
SUNKARIPETA VILLAGE, MALICHERLA, VIZIANAGARAM
MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.
2. SMT. SUNKARI APPALAKONDA, W/O LATE SURYANARAYANA,
AGED 58 YEARS, R/O SUNKARIPETA VILLAGE,
MALICCHERLA, VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. SUNKARI NARAYANAMMA, W/O LATE PENTAYYA, AGED, 77
YEARS, R/O SUNKARIPETA VILLAGE, H/O MALICHERLA,
VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL 85 DISTRICT
2. SUNKARI GOPALARAO, S/O LATE PENTAYYA, AGED 55
YEARS, R/O SUNKARIPETA VILLAGE, H/O. MALICHERLA.
VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL DISTRICT.
3. SUNKARI RAMU, S/O LATE PENTAYYA, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O
SUNKARIPETA VILLAGE, H/O. MALICHERLA, VIZIANAGARAM
MANDAL AND DISTRICT
Page 2 of 13
4. SUNKARI LAKSHMANA, S/O. LATE PENTAYYA, AGED 45
YEARS, R/O SUNKARIPETA VILLAGE, H/O. MALICHERLA,
VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL AND DISTRICT.
5. RONGLI ESWARAMMA, W/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED 62
YEARS, R/O RAYAVALASA VILLAGE, GANTYADA MANDAL,
VIZIARIAGARAM DISTRICT
6. BODASINGI ADI LAKSHMI, W/O. APPALANAIDU, AGED 57
YEARS, R/O CHELLURU VILLAGE, VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL
AND DISTRICT
7. CHANDAKA BANGARU LAKSHMI, , W/O. PRASAD, AGED 45
YEARS, R/O AYYANNAPETA VILLAGE, VIZIANAGARAM
MANDAL AND DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in
the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may
be pleased to set aside the Order dated 25.08.2025 in I.A.No.326/2025
in O.S.No.28/2016 on the file of the Principal District Judge -
Vizianagaram and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.28/2018 on
the file of the Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram, pending disposal of
the above CRP and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. G SAI NARAYANA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. G RAMA GOPAL
The Court made the following:
Page 3 of 13
ORDER
The defendants in the suit filed the above revision against the
order dated 25.08.2025 in I.A.No.326 of 2025 in O.S.No.28 of 2018 on
the file of the Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram.
2. The respondents, being the plaintiffs, filed the suit O.S.No.28 of
2018 against the defendants for declaration of title and consequential
permanent injunction etc. The defendants filed a written statement,
contesting the suit.
3. The 1st defendant in suit O.S.No.28 of 2018, filed suit O.S.No.352
of 2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram,
seeking perpetual injunction against the plaintiffs 1 to 4, in respect of the
plaint schedule properties. Some of the schedule properties in
O.S.NO.28 of 2018 and O.S.No.352 of 2012 are similar. Later, the suit
O.S.No.352 of 2012 was transferred to the Court of the Principal District
Judge, Vizianagaram and renumbered as O.S.No.91 of 2018.
4. a) In the plaint in O.S.No.28 of 2018, it was pleaded that the 1 st
plaintiff is the wife, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the sons and the plaintiffs 5 to
7 are the daughters of late Sunkari Pentayya, S/o Guruvulu. The plaint
schedule properties originally belonged to Sunkari Guruvulu @ Gurayya.
The said Sunkari Guruvulu had a sister by name Sannamma, and she
was given in marriage to Marthi Appayya, paternal grandfather of the
defendants 1 and 2. The plaint schedule properties are ancestral
properties of Sunkari Guruvulu. The said Guruvulu entrusted
management of the properties to Marthi Appayya. Sunkari Guruvulu has
got only one son by name Pentayya, husband of the 1st plaintiff and
father of plaintiffs 2 to 7, besides a daughter by name Appalamma.
Page 4 of 13
Marthi Appayya was blessed with a son by name Ramulu. The daughter
of Guruvulu was given in marriage to Marthi Ramulu, father of
defendants 1 and 2. Sunkari Pentayya and Marthi Ramulu used to live
jointly.
b) A partition was effected between Sunkari Pentayya and Marthi
Ramulu, in which some of the properties fell to the share of Pentayya,
some of the properties fell to the share of Ramulu and some properties
were divided equally into two halves. In the said partition, Pentayya got
the plaint „A‟ schedule properties to his share. He also got plaint „B‟
schedule properties, which are half of the extents in the full extents of the
same survey numbers and the remaining extent in the said survey
numbers fell to the share of Marthi Ramulu. Besides the plaint „A‟ & „B”
schedule properties, Sunkari Pentayya got some other properties
towards his share.
c) During the survey and settlement, the name of Sunkari
Pentayya was incorporated in fair adangal in respect of properties that
exclusively fell to his share. In respect of properties, which were divided
by Sunkari Pentayya and Marthi Ramulu in the same survey numbers,
the names of both Pentayya and Ramulu were incorporated in the
revenue records i.e. settlement fair adangal. However, pattadar pass
book and title deed were issued in the name of Pentayya and full extents
were mentioned to some items that fell to the share of Pentayya.
d) Sunkari Pentayya died about 20 years back, and after his death,
the plaintiffs, being the descendants, succeeded to the plaint A and B
schedule properties along with other properties. Taking advantage of the
innocence of the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant got incorporated his name in
1-B Register and also adangals in respect of plaint schedule properties
Page 5 of 13along with his other properties. Thereafter, the 1st defendant filed suit
O.S.No.352 of 2012 seeking perpetual injunction against the plaintiffs 1
to 4 by including some of the properties belonging to the plaintiffs, as if
he has been in possession and enjoyment based on revenue records.
They are also attempting to sell the properties to 3rd parties by showing
manipulated revenue records. Hence, the suit was filed seeking
declaration of title over the plaint A and B schedule properties and
consequential permanent injunction.
5. The defendants filed a written statement and denied the averments
in the plaint. It was contended, inter alia, that survey and settlement was
conducted about 50 years back. The suit for declaration is to be filed
within three years as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act; hence, the suit is
barred by limitation. The plaintiffs concocted the revenue records and
filed the suit. The plaintiffs were never in possession and enjoyment of
the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiffs and their ancestors are in no
way concerned with the plaint schedule properties. Sunkari Guruvulu
never entrusted the management of properties to Marthi Appayya.
Marthi Appayya never resided jointly along with Sunkari Guruvulu under
one roof. There was no partition as pleaded. The averments in the plaint
regarding the 1st defendant incorporating his name in 1-B Register and
adangal were also denied. The defendants have been in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. The plaint
schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the defendants. After
the death of the defendants‟ father, they succeeded to the plaint
schedule properties as Class-I heirs. The revenue authorities updated
the record of rights and mutated the name of the 1st defendant in the
revenue records. The 1st defendant filed suit O.S.No.352 of 2012 against
Page 6 of 13
the plaintiffs 1 to 4 and pleaded title and possession over the schedule
properties.
6. In O.S.No.28 of 2018, the following issues are framed:
1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of
declaration as prayed for?
3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of
permanent injunction as prayed for?
4) To what relief?
7. In O.S.No.91 of 2018 (old suit O.S.No.352 of 2012), the following
issues are framed:
1) Whether the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and
enjoyment over the plaint schedule property by the date
of filing of the suit?
2) Whether the frame of the suit is not correct as
contended by the defendants?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent
injunction as prayed for?
4) To what relief?
8. A joint trial was conducted by the trial Court, and the evidence is
recorded in O.S.No.28 of 2018. The 1st plaintiff examined himself as
P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A18. She also examined P.Ws.2 and 3.
The suit was posted for further evidence. At that stage, the plaintiff filed
I.A.No.326 of 2025 under Order XVII Rule 3 of CPC to permit them to
adduce rebuttal evidence, after adducing oral and documentary evidence
by the defendants.
Page 7 of 13
9. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, while reiterating the
averments in the plaint, it was contended that the plaintiffs adduced
evidence in O.S.No.28 of 2018 and they cannot adduce negative
evidence regarding the oral and documentary evidence to be adduced by
the 1st defendant, being the plaintiff in O.S.No.91 of 2018. Thus, this
application was filed to permit the plaintiffs to adduce rebuttal evidence,
after the evidence of the defendants.
10. The defendants filed counter and opposed the application. It was
contended that since both the suits were clubbed and the evidence is
being recorded in O.S.No.28 of 2018, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to
adduce rebuttal evidence.
11. The trial Court by order dated 25.08.2025, allowed the application.
12. Heard Sri G.Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Sri G.Ramagopal, learned counsel for the respondents.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that no specific
issue was framed casting burden on the defendants and thereby the
plaintiffs cannot be allowed to adduce rebuttal evidence. The suit
O.S.No.28 of 2018 was filed for declaration and injunction, and in the
said suit, defendants filed a written statement, and hence, the plaintiffs
are aware of the defence of defendants. When the relief of permanent
injunction is common in both the suits, permitting the plaintiffs to lead
rebuttal evidence will prejudice the case of the revision petitioners.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would
submit that the 1st defendant, being the plaintiff in O.S.No.91 of 2018 (old
suit O.S.No.352 of 2012), seeks perpetual injunction. In the said suit, he
Page 8 of 13
claimed exclusive title over the property. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.28 of
2018 cannot adduce negative evidence in anticipation of evidence to be
led by the plaintiff in O.S.No.91 of 2018 (old suit O.S.No.352 of 2012).
Considering the said fact, the trial Court allowed the application.
15. Now, the points for consideration are:
1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
plaintiffs are entitled to lead rebuttal evidence?
2) Whether the order dated 25.08.2025 in I.A.No.326 of 2025 in
O.S.No.28 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge,
Vizianagaram, suffers from illegality, and brooks
interference of this Court?
16. The facts narrated supra do not require reiteration. Normally in a
suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to
succeed on the strength of his own case and cannot depend upon the
weakness in the case of the defendant. In this case on hand, the plaintiffs
filed the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. The 1st defendant
filed suit for injunction and asserted title to the properties. Thus, as seen
from the pleadings, both the parties to the suit asserted title and
possession. The suit for injunction was transferred from the Court of
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram to the Court of Principal
District Judge, Vizianagaram, where the suit for declaration and
injunction is pending. The evidence is being recorded in O.S.No.28 of
2018. Even in a suit for perpetual injunction, based on title, the Civil
Court also considers the title incidentally.
17. The concept of rebuttal evidence is traceable to Order XVIII Rule 3
CPC. Order XVIII CPC envisages hearing of the suit and examination of
Page 9 of 13
witnesses. It is apt to extract Rule 3 of Order XVIII for better
understanding, which reads thus:
3. Evidence where several issues.–Where there are several
issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the other party,
the party beginning may, at his option, either produce his evidence
on those issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence
produced by the other party; and, in the latter case, the party
beginning may produce evidence on those issues after the other
party has produced all his evidence, and the other party may then
reply specially on the evidence so produced by the party beginning;
but the party beginning will then be entitled to reply generally on the
whole case.
18. Thus, a bare reading of the Rule, the issues in a suit play, a
prominent role regarding rebuttal evidence. One of the requirements to
be satisfied for reserving the right to lead rebuttal evidence is that there
shall be an issue in respect of which the burden of the proof lies on the
other party. The reservation of the right of adducing rebuttal evidence
need not be expressed, and it can be exercised by way of filing a memo
on behalf of the party who has begun the evidence on his side. Of
course, if the reservation is express, the matter would present no
difficulty. But such a reservation could also be implied in a case where
the counsel for such a party makes a statement that he is closing the
evidence of his party in the affirmative only. In such a case, it must be
held that the party had implicitly reserved the right to adduce rebuttal
evidence.
19. When the trial goes on, there are various stages of evidence.
Normally the plaintiff begins the case, and thereafter evidence will be
Page 10 of 13
closed. Later, the defendant starts the evidence; the defendant‟s
evidence will be closed. If the burden on a particular issue is on the
opposite party, the plaintiff should make an application to lead rebuttal
evidence.
20. In this case, as noted supra, two suits were filed; one for
declaration and injunction and the other for perpetual injunction. Plaintiffs
in both the suits are asserting title to the property. Though the other suit
is filed for perpetual injunction, it was also based on title. The burden vis-
à -vis possession and title rests upon the plaintiff in the transferee suit i.e.
O.S.No.91 of 2018, though a common trial was conducted. The plaintiff in
the present suit necessarily provides an opportunity to rebut the evidence
to be led by the defendant, who is the plaintiff in the other suit. Precisely
the first issue in O.S.No.91 of 2018, i.e. “Whether the plaintiff is in
exclusive possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule
property by the date of filing of the suit”, the burden lies on the
plaintiff in O.S.No.91 of 2018. In respect of the said issue, the plaintiff in
O.S.No.28 of 2018 must be provided an opportunity to lead the rebuttal
evidence.
21. In Nalajala Narasayya VS Nalajala Sitayya 1, a Division Bench of
the composite High Court on a reference after considering an earlier
judgement of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Punjab &
Haryana High Court held as follows:
“11. From the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the
reservation of the right of adducing rebuttal evidence need not be
express and need not always be by way of a memo filed on behalf of
the party who has begun the evidence on his side. Of course, if the1
AIR 1992 AP 97
Page 11 of 13reservation is express, the matter would present no difficulty. But
such a reservation could also be implied in a case where the counsel
for such a party makes a statement that he is closing the evidence of
his party in the affirmative only. In such a case, it must be held that
the party had implicitly reserved the right to adduce rebuttal
evidence. Kodandaramayya, J. implied such a reservation on the
facts of the case before him particularly because the plaintiff in that
case had not adduced any evidence whatsoever on some issues on
which the burden lay on the opposite party. We are of the opinion
that the view taken by Kodandaramayya, J. that reservation need not
be express but could be implied and which view is supported by the
judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court, is correct and does not run counter to the provisions of O.
XVIII, R. 3, CPC. In our view, the reservation could be implied from
the facts and circumstances of the case or the conduct of the case.
We do not, therefore, agree with the view of Panduranga Rao, J, that
reservation should always be express or by way of a memo filed on
behalf of the party who begins the evidence on his side.”
22. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
plaintiffs already let in evidence regarding the possession and hence the
question of rebuttal evidence doesn‟t arise, this Court is not persuaded
by the said contention, since the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff in
suit O.S.No.91 of 2018 regarding the possession. Then only the plaintiff
in O.S.No.28 of 2018 will be able to rebut that evidence. Though the
issue of possession appears to be the same in the first breadth, however,
it is not alike. Both the plaintiffs have to lead separate evidence in
respect of their claims. In that view of the matter, the I.A. filed by the
respondents herein seeking to adduce rebuttal evidence was answered
by the learned trial court from a correct perspective. The judgment cited
Page 12 of 13
by the learned counsel for the petitioner rendered by the Bombay High
Court in Womens Co-operative Bank Ltds. Thr. Chairperson/General
Manager and another Vs. Vikas Bhagwant Sawkar and others 2, may
not apply to the facts of this case.
23. The scope of a revision under Art 227 of the Constitution of India
was dealt with in Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. and
Another Vs. B.Gurappa Naidu and Others3, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex
Court considered the judgments in Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra
Shankar Patil 4 ; Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. 5 , and
Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel 6 and summarised the
principles as follows:
“35. In short, the principles laid down in the above matters, is as follows:
a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be
exercised unless there has been an (a) unwarranted assumption
of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse
of jurisdiction or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction
vested in Courts or tribunals.
b) It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this
Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or
substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate
court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the
record.
c) The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as
a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or
facts upon which the determination under challenge is based.
2
2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2809
3
2026 SCC OnLine SC 745
4
(2010) 8 SCC 329
5
(2001) 8 SCC 97
6
(2022) 4 SCC 181
Page 13 of 13
Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or
even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be
supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on
facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal.”
24. Given the discussion supra, the order under revision brooks no
interference while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. The trial court appreciated all the contentions and
passed a reasoned order. There are no merits in the revision. The
revision is liable to be dismissed.
25. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is Dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand
closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
PVD
Whether the order is :
Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No
Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
