Allowed

Smt. Shaik Bismillabi v. Shaik Hameed

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Oct 2019CRP/107/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Civil Revision Petition challenging the trial court's refusal to forward a mortgage deed for fingerprint comparison. The appellate court held that comparing the contested thumb impression with the petitioner's admitted impression was essential, allowed the petition, and directed the trial court to comply.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside, Ex.B.1 was directed to be forwarded to the Fingerprint Expert for opinion, and the trial court was directed to obtain the petitioner's thumb impression in court.

Smt. Shaik Bismillabi Vs Shaik Hameed — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA

¶2

C.R.P.No. 107 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Court of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakalurpet in I.A.No.489 of 2017 in O.S.No.10 of 2016 dated 14.12.2018.

¶5

The plaintiff is the petitioner. She filed the suit to declare her right, title and interest as owner of the plaint schedule property against the respondent, who is the defendant and for consequential relief for recovery of possession of the same.

¶6

The dispute in respect of Ac.0-75 cents of dry land of Boppudi village, Chilakaluripet Mandal. 4. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act requesting the Court to forward the conditional mortgage deed dated 03.03.1993 (Ex.B.1) to Government Finger Print expert for comparison of thumb impressions attributed to her in the document along with her admitted thumb impression and for opinion.

¶7

Such effort is made by the petitioner to support her version in the suit that she has never executed Ex.B.1-conditional mortgage deed, in favour of the respondent, that it was obtained by impersonation and thus she denied execution of this document. The respondent asserted that the petitioner executed the above document, amongst and other defences he had raised in the suit.

¶8

With reference to such request of the petitioner to forward this document to the Government Finger Print expert, the respondent resisted in the trial Court on the premise that at the

MVR,J

C.R.P.No.107 of 2019

trial, the petitioner and her daughter who were examined as PW.1 and PW.2 respectively admitted in cross examination as to execution of this document and making such effort after entire evidence of parties was completed, is improper.

¶13

Considering the same, learned trial Judge accepted the version of the respondent and dismissed the petition mainly observing that it is for the petitioner to prove her case when she has filed a suit for declaration leading appropriate evidence and filing petition at the stage of arguments was uncalled for. Thus observing that the petition was filed with an object to cause delay in disposal of the matter, dismissed the petition.

¶14

Now, Sri K. Manikyala Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the approach of the trial Court in this respect is improper and that there was never any admission by PW.1 and PW.2 of the execution of this document nor was it elicited in the cross examination of these witnesses on behalf of respondent. He further contended that to support the version of petitioner when such effort is made by her to get expert opinion, the trial Court should have allowed the application.

¶15

Sri A. Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order under revision for reason contending that the suit has come to close and ripe for disposal and hence, filing this petition at this stage is apparently to procrastinate the proceedings, more so, when there is sufficient evidence adduced on behalf of parties in respect of their respective claims. Thus, contending it is requested not to interfere with the order of the trial Court.

¶16

MVR,J C.R.P.No.107 of 2019

¶17

¶18

Now, the point for determination is – “whether Ex.B.1 styled as conditional mortgage deed dated 03.03.1993 be forwarded for examination by an expert in respect of thumb impressions thereon?”

¶19

The specific contention of the petitioner is that, she has never executed Ex.B.1 in favour of respondent and it was brought into existence by impersonation. With reference to nature of such contention, it is desirable to have appropriate evidence on record. Mere oral evidence to support the version of the petitioner may not sufficient in the circumstances.

¶20

Another fact or of significance to be noted in this context is that the petitioner is requesting the Court for comparison of her thumb impression attributed to her in Ex.B.1. This document was filed at the trial during November 2016. As rightly pointed out by the petitioner, immediately thereafter, on 07.04.2017, she came up with the petition for such purpose. Therefore, delay in filing such application is not a matter of significance in this matter.

¶21

It is further to be noted that science relating to comparison for finger print is an exact science. It is settled proposition of law. When a party requires assistance of the Court to get thumb impression appearing on a document with admitted thumb impressions, denial of such request is not proper. If such document is subjected to an examination by the competent finger print expert, certainly it would be known whether the document has been executed by same person who has given the admitted thumb impressions. Therefore, if such exercise is undertaken, it would be not only beneficial to the petitioner but also to the

¶22

MVR,J C.R.P.No.107 of 2019

¶23

¶24

respondent. The learned trial Judge apparently lost sight of this significant factor to consider the petition and in right perspective. 13. Reasons so assigned in the petition cannot have any bearing nor can be appreciated. Therefore, they have to be set aside.

¶25

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, order of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakalurpet in I.A.No.489 of 2017 in O.S.No.10 of 2016 dated 14.12.2018 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to forward Ex.B.1, conditional mortgage deed dated 03.03.1993 to True Labs, Finger Print Expert, Hyderabad. The trial Court is also directed to obtain (thumb impressions) of the petitioner in open Court preferably in the presence of the parties to the suit and their learned counsel. A proceeding shall be prepared by the trial Court in that context and there upon, the trial Court is directed to forward Ex.B.1 as stated above to the expert. The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the above purpose tentatively to meet the expenses in the trial Court within 2(two) weeks from this day. Thereafter, trial Court is directed to follow the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶27

M. VENKATA RAMANA, J

¶28

Date: 18.10.2019 Note: Furnish copy by Monday. B/o Jks.

MVR,J

C.R.P.No.107 of 2019

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA

¶33

C.R.P.No.107 of 2019

¶34

DATE:18^th day of October 2019

¶35

JKS

Smt. Shaik Bismillabi v. Shaik Hameed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shaik Bismillabi v. Shaik Hameed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P Surya Prakasa Rao Vs a Kumar Jain

Namburi Venkata Naga Raju Vs Amalapuram Municipality

Baki Vijaya Grace Alias Gayathri Vs Baki Suresh Reddy

K Prasad, Krishna Dist Vs J Adiseshaiah, Krishna Dist

Singampalli Mani, Vs Smt. Chenna Appala Narasamma

Singampalli Mani Vs N Jagalayya