Dismissed

Vummethala Krishna Mohan, Hyd v. Vummethala Madhu Mohan, Guntur Dist and 4 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Dec 2021CRP/3321/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition challenging the trial court's order dismissing an application to summon a copy of a thumb impression. The Court held that since the thumb impression was disputed and not admitted, there was no admitted material for comparison, warranting no interference.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition No. 3321 of 2017 is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions closed.

Vummethala Krishna Mohan, Hyd Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3321 of 2017

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.454 of 2014 in the Court of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. The dispute in the suit centred around the question of the validity and genuineness of two rival Wills, dated 08.03.2014 and 27.03.2014 which have been put forward by the petitioner on one hand and the respondents on the other hand. To demonstrate that the Will propounded by the petitioner, dated 08.03.2014 is the genuine Will, he had filed I.A.No.563 of 2016 before the trial Court for summoning a copy application, dated 19.03.2014 filed before the Sub-Registrar. It is the case of the petitioner that this copy application contains a thumb impression of his mother and comparison of the said thumb impression with the thumb impression on the Wills, dated 08.03.2014 and 27.03.2014 would resolve the dispute.

¶4

The respondents took the stand that they disputed the thumb impression on the copy application. In those circumstances, the trial Court had dismissed the application by an order, dated 15.06.2017. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

¶5

A perusal of the order would show that, the trial Court, after going through the pleadings as well as contentions raised by both sides, had come to the conclusion that there is no admitted thumb impression of the mother of the petitioner,

¶6

¶7

which is available for comparison. I have been taken through the said order as well as the pleadings and I have not been shown any material to come to a different conclusion.

¶8

The case of the petitioner is that the thumb impression available on the copy application said to have been filed by his mother on 19.03.2014 is the actual thumb impression of his mother. This contention has been denied by the respondents. In such circumstances, the said thumb impression cannot be treated as an admitted thumb impression of his mother. Accordingly, there is no reason to interfere with the orders of the trial Court.

¶9

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶11

_________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

Date : 08.12.2021

SPP

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶16

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3321 of 2017

¶17

Date : 08.12.2021

¶18

SPP

Vummethala Krishna Mohan, Hyd v. Vummethala Madhu Mohan, Guntur Dist and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vummethala Krishna Mohan, Hyd v. Vummethala Madhu Mohan, Guntur Dist and 4 Others

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

Thota Nancharaiah, Krishna Dist Vs Kotti Venkateswara Rao, Krishna Dist

Pratap Chaganlal Vs Vikramjethalaljoisher

Challapalli Chandrasekhar Vs Chintanippu Nageshwar Reddy and Another

Kuraganti Chenna Rao Vs Kuraganti Yesobu

Konala Padmavathi Vs Dwarampudi Kasamma (Died) and 3 Others

M.Murthaiah Vs Vajje Subbalakshmi