Dismissed

Myla Shantha Kumari, v. Gundala Philip

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Dec 2021CRP/404/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the order of the trial Court allowing an application to send a disputed document to a handwriting expert for comparison with signatures to be obtained from the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Cleaned up the text of the judgment.

What the court decided

Myla Shantha Kumari, Vs Gundala Philip — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.404 of 2021

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The 1^st respondent herein had filed O.S.No.366 of 2014 in the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, for a declaration of title and consequent delivery of possession, against the petitioners herein and the 2^nd respondent herein of the suit schedule property.

¶4

The case of the 1^st respondent is that he was in need of money and the 1^st petitioner herein had offered to advance money to the 1^st respondent for which, she sought security. After negotiations, it was agreed that the 1^st petitioner would advance a sum of Rs.4 lakhs to the 1^st respondent, for which, the 1^st respondent was to execute a nominal sale deed in favour of the 1^st petitioner as security, for the repayment of the money, advanced by the 1^st petitioner. The 1^st respondent contends that instead of a sum of Rs.4 lakhs, the 1^st petitioner had advanced only Rs.2.5 lakhs and that as assurance for the 1^st respondent, the 1^st petitioner had also given hand written note, which is marked as Ex.A3 in the trial, to the effect that the 1^st respondent would be given time up to one year from 28.11.2013 to repay the loan. The 1^st respondent further contends that the 1^st petitioner instead of waiting for the said period had executed two sale deeds in favour of her own daughters much before the time given to the 1^st respondent. On this basis, the 1^st respondent initially filed a suit for injunction, restraining the defendants therein from interfering with his possession and

¶5

RRR,J. CRP.No.404 of 2021

¶6

¶7

subsequently amended the suit prayer to seek declaration of title and for consequent repossession of the property.

¶8

The case of the petitioners has been that the sale deed executed by the 1^st respondent is a pure and simple deed of sale under which, the suit schedule property had been transferred and handed over to the petitioners after receipt of the entire sale consideration shown in the deed of sale. The petitioners contend that the entire version of the 1^st respondent that the sale deed was only a form of security and that the 1^st respondent is entitled to recover the said property is totally untenable and far from the truth.

¶9

The 1^st respondent after marking Ex.A3, by way of I.A.No.268 of 2020, had sought to be send the document for examination by a handwriting expert so that the said document could be compared with the other handwriting of the 1^st petitioner which could be obtained in Court as well as with contemporaneous signatures. This application was allowed by the trial Court on 09.02.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present civil revision petition.

¶10

Sri T.D.Phani Kumar learned counsel appearing for Sri B.S.Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court erred in allowing the said application. He contends that there was no contemporaneous writing of the 1^st petitioner available with the Court to be sent for comparison. He further submits that the suit was filed in the year 2014 and the present application was filed in 2020 after evidence of the petitioner, who was examined as P.W.1 was completed and same

¶11

RRR,J. CRP.No.404 of 2021

¶12

¶13

is belated and the filing of the application during the cross examination of D.W.1 is highly belated and should have been rejected as allowing the application at that stage causes prejudice to the interest of the petitioners. He further submits that the said document is wholly irrelevant for a decision in the case and as such, no purpose would be served by sending the said document for comparison for any other handwriting of the 1^st petitioner.

¶14

Heard Sri T.D.Phani Kumar learned counsel appearing for Sri B.S.Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuru, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶15

A perusal of the plaint and the written statement would show that the version of the 1^st respondent is that the sale deed is a nominal document given as security which can be demonstrated on the basis of Ex.A3 which gives him the right of re-conveyance from the 1^st petitioner. The case of the 1^st petitioner is that the sale deed was a genuine deed of sale and there was no underlying transaction. In these circumstances, it is apparent that Ex.A3 is the document which would decide the entire dispute. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that sending Ex.A3 for comparison with any other handwriting or signature of the 1^st petitioner is irrelevant or unconnected to a decision in the main case.

¶16

The contention of Sri T.D.Phani Kumar learned counsel appearing for Sri B.S.Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners that the order is not capable of being complied as

¶17

RRR,J. CRP.No.404 of 2021

¶18

¶19

there are no contemporaneous writing or signatures of the 1^st petitioner available with the Court may also not be sufficient to interfere with the order of the trial Court. The order of the trial Court requires comparison of the writing in Ex.A3 with the writing and signatures that are to be obtained from the 1^st petitioner in open Court.

¶20

The further objection that the application is belated also need to be rejected as the said application for a decision of whether the handwriting in Ex.A3 is the handwriting of the 1^st petitioner or not, would not affect the progress of the trial of the suit and such a comparison by a handwriting expert does not in any manner cause any prejudice to the interests of the petitioners as this dispute as to the genuineness of Ex.A3 has always been raised from the inception of the litigation itself.

¶21

In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the trial Court.

¶22

As the suit is of the year 2014, the trial Court shall take steps to expeditiously dispose of the suit and observations of this Court shall not be taken into account by the trial in the disposal of the suit.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶26

03.12.2021 RJS

¶27

RRR,J. CRP.No.404 of 2021

¶28

¶29

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶30

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.404 of 2021

¶31

03.12.2021

¶32

RJS

Myla Shantha Kumari, v. Gundala Philip

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Myla Shantha Kumari, v. Gundala Philip

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

R Saraswathi Vs v Venkatrao

Smt. Meka Sushma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pala Somayya Vs Smt. Chellanki Baby Sarojini

Gudala Chiranjivi, Vs Nuli Lakshmi Narayana Family Private Trust

Sandrana Krishnarao Vs Sagi Venkata Subbarajju

Tippagudisa Rosaiah Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh