Common Order:

1. All these three civil revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are filed challenging the orders passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, Prakasam District in I.A.Nos.179, 177 & 178 of 2025 in O.S.No.133 of 2012 dated 23.07.2025.

2. O.S.No.133 of 2012 is filed for declaration of passage rights of plaintiff to reach Z Z1 marked bazaar through X series passage and for granting consequential permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff, restraining the defendants and their men, from in anyway interfering with ‘X’ series passage right of plaintiff to reach Z Z1 marked bazaar and to award costs of the suit.

3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are defendants in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are herein referred as arrayed before the Court below.

4. During hearing, Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiff submits that, D.W.1 acquired adjacent property to X series passage under Ex.B-1 basing upon the VRO Certificate dated 26.05.2011. With malice intention, D.W.1 got executed sale deed in his favour more than the property what was held by his vendor and also mentioned different survey number which was neither acquired nor owned otherwise by the vendor of D.W.1 nor himself and no link document was filed to that effect. It is the case of D.W.1 in his cross-examination that no certificate was issued by the Tahsildar in respect of common passage of X to X-3 and further contended by the plaintiff in his evidence that the alleged certificate issued by the VRO is not a valid certificate and the same was not issued by following due procedure as contemplated. He asserts that, after completion of plaintiff evidence, he got secured the certificate issued by the Tahsildar dated 01.04.2020 which reveals that the recitals of Ex.b-1 were drawn with an intention to encroach X series passage without there being any title or possession held by the vendor of D.W.1. He argues that the plaintiff also obtained copy of ROR – Meeseva copy and Adangal to show that the subject X-series property of D.W.1 is not covered under house property. Therefore, the ROR – Meeseva copy and Adangal copy in respect of subject survey number were procured after completion of plaintiff evidence. Therefore, the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, ROR – Meeseva copy and Adangal issued by the revenue authorities are crucial documents to prove the case of the plaintiff, as such, filed I.A.No.179 of 2025 under Order VII Rule 14(1) and Section 151 C.P.C praying to receive the certificate issued by the Tahsildar dated 01.04.2020, ROR – Meeseva copy and Adangal copy; and filed I.A.No.177 of 2025 and I.A No.178 of 2025 respectively, to reopen the evidence of P.W.1 and recall P.W1 for further examination, in order to mark the certificate issued by the Tahsildar on his behalf.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, if the Hon’ble Court did not allow these petitions, the petitioner/plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and hardship and consciously created right while drawing the recitals of Ex.B-1 without there being any right whatsoever conferred upon the vendor of D.W.1. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the Court below in dismissing I.A.Nos.179, 177 & 178 of 2025 in O.S.No.133 of 2012 dated 23.07.2025 i.e. to receive the certificate issued by the Tahisldar office dated 01.04.2020, ROR Meeseva Certificate, adangal copy; recall and reopen the evidence of P.W.1 by speaking order without proper reasons and by way of docket orders respectively, is erroneous and contrary to law.

6. He further submits that, the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to file a petition under Order VII Rule 14(1) C.P.C at any point of time, particularly, even after completion of defendants evidence and the said documents were procured considering the evidence of D.W.1, as such, the same should be received and marked by allowing other petitions. He further submits that, the Court below went on the premise that the said documents were filed with so much of delay and when the matter was posted for arguments and filing these petitions is only to drag on the matter is certainly contrary to the plea of the plaintiff and also facts on record, as such, the orders passed by the Court below in I.A.Nos.179, 177 & 178 of 2025 in O.S.No.133 of 2012 dated 23.07.2025 are liable to be set-aside in the interest of justice.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available before this Court.

8. Admittedly, O.S.No.133 of 2012 is filed in the year 2012 and still the suit was not determined by the Court below, for the reasons best known to the parties therein. But, the factor to be considered before this Court is that, more than 13 years has elapsed after filing the suit and still it is pending for final determination. As per the orders of the Court below in I.A.No.179 of 2025 in O.S.No.133 of 2012 dated 23.07.2025, the matter was posted for arguments on 03.12.2024 after completion of evidence of both the parties. The entire claim of the plaintiff in I.A.No.179 of 2025 is that, he has procured a certificate dated 01.04.2020 issued by Tahsildar concerned and he also obtained ROR Meeseva certificate and adangal copy after completion/adducing his evidence, as such, he is unable to mark the said documents to prove his case. The fact remains that the matter was posted for arguments after completion of evidence on both sides but the plaintiff has been dragging the matter without arguing the mater on many occasions even though it is coming for arguments and finally got filed these civil revision petitions after the matter is posted for arguments on 03.12.2024. The said action of the plaintiff is certainly in support of the finding of the Court below that to drag the matter for one reason or the other.

9. On perusal of the affidavit and counter affidavit filed by both the parties as well as arguments canvassed by both the parties before the Trial Court, it is observed that the contention of the plaintiff that Ex.B-1 sale deed of D.W.1 was intentionally drawn to encroach X X-3 common passage to reach to Z Z-1 main bazaar/panchayat main road without there being any rights whatsoever held by his vendor to alienate the subject property appears to be valid in the absence of link document of D.W-1. The said Ex.B-1 said to have been drawn basing upon the certificate issued by the VRO dated 26.05.2011, thereby, the plaintiff extensively canvassed that the defendant/D.W.1 could not get any rights in respect of common passage marked as X - X-3 series under the guise of certificate of VRO dated 26.05.2011 which is not a valid certificate is valid and sustainable ground for the reason that the VRO is neither authority nor the custodian of any record, but he is only an assistant to the competent authority.

10. Whereas, as per settled Latin legal maxim "nemo dat quod non habet" means "no one gives what he does not have". It is a fundamental legal rule, often called the nemo dat rule, which states that a buyer cannot acquire a better title to the property than the seller had. In simpler terms, if a person does not legally own something, they cannot sell it to someone else and give that new person legal ownership of it. The rule is the basis for the principle of derivative title, meaning a buyer's ownership right comes from the seller's ownership right and cannot be more than that.

11. As contended by the plaintiff, VRO is not the competent authority to issue any such certificate and he can only assist the competent authority in processing the file and issuance of certificate by the Tahsildar, therefore, as per law, the certificate issued by the VRO which is the basis for Ex.B-1 admittedly is not a valid certificate as per law. Therefore, the same is neither admissible document nor any inference can be drawn.

12. In view of the settled proposition of law, D.W.1 neither can get any title nor any rights in respect of X X-3 common passage, since his vendor did not possess any rights over the subject property. The basis of certificate of VRO is not a valid one, therefore, the Court below certainly will consider these aspects since the same were argued and urged by the plaintiff and adduced in his evidence. Therefore, for proving the well said proposition of law, the claim of the plaintiff to mark the additional documents is not at all necessary, the Court below should be allowed to proceed further in accordance with law only. The plaintiff cannot presume that the court below would not consider the well settled proposition of law as mentioned above, on perusal of the order of the Court below, the Court below expressly opined that there is no necessity of marking of documents which were proposed through these petitions. Once the plaintiff already canvassed about the legality of issuance of certificate by VRO and also the rights of the vendor of D.W.1, therefore, the Court below keeping in mind regarding the above well settled principle of law and rightly dismissed the petitions on the ground that the documents are not at all necessary for determination of issue before the court which were already canvassed by both the parties at length.

13. For the reasons stated above, the orders passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, Prakasam District in I.A.Nos.179, 177 & 178 of 2025 in O.S.No.133 of 2012 dated 23.07.2025 neither suffers from any perversity nor malice and does not warrant interference by this Court.

14. In the result, civil revision petition are dismissed. No costs.

15. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. No costs.