Allowed

Kuraganti Chenna Rao v. Kuraganti Yesobu

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Dec 2021CRP/6734/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the trial Court's order allowing respondents to reopen evidence to send entries to a Government Handwriting Expert. The High Court held that since the trial Court could form a prima facie view on variations, no expert opinion was necessary. The revision was allowed leaving the final decision to the trial Court.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was allowed. The trial Court is directed to decide on the existence of variations in ink, handwriting, and over-writing in the entries. No orders as to costs.

Kuraganti Chenna Rao Vs Kuraganti Yesobu — Partition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.6734 of 2017

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.117 of 2014 in the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri for partition of the suit schedule property against the defendants claiming a share in the estate of late Sri Kuraganti Pullaiah. The defendants pleaded that late Sri Kuraganti Pullaiah had executed an unregistered Will, dated 26.01.1975 in favour of their father and as such the plaintiff would not get any share in the suit schedule property.

¶4

The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the suit, took the stand that the late Sri Kuraganti Pullaiah passed away in the year 1972 and as such he could not have executed a will in the year 1975. To resolve this issue, the respondents filed an application for production of the death register of the year 1972 pertaining to the village where late Sri Kuraganti Pullaiah was residing. The said death register was produced into Court from the custody of the MRO, Mangalagiri. The Register is said to have contained two entries on 15.07.1971 and 10.08.1972 showing the death of late Sri Kuraganti Pullaiah. However, it was found that the first entry, dated 15.07.1972, pertains to one Tanneru Lakshmaiah and the second entry dated 10.08.1972, is said to be the entry relating to the death of late Sri Kuraganti Pullaiah.

¶5

After the register had been marked, the respondents again filed an application to reopen the evidence of the defendants/respondents and to send the said entries to the Government Handwriting Expert to compare these entries with the signature and date of one Madala

¶6

¶7

Gopala Rao, who is said to have signed at the bottom of the said register.

¶8

The trial Court allowed this application on 06.10.2017 holding that the trial Court could make out variations and changes in the ink used by the person, who is alleged to have made these entries and that such changes in ink and writing needs to be clarified.

¶9

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner, who is the 2^nd defendant in the suit, has filed the present revision petition.

¶10

Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Ravindra Babu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶11

The purpose of the said application is to ascertain whether there is any change in the ink, in writings, if any, and change in the handwriting of the entries of 15.07.1972 and 10.08.1972. The prima facie opinion expressed by the trial Court that there are such variations is sufficient and in view of such a prima facie opinion, there would be no further requirement for sending the said entries for any further opinion of the Handwriting Expert. It is settled law that where the trial Court can itself compare the handwriting on a document or a signature to determine whether such handwriting or signature belongs to the same person or not, there would be no necessity to send such a document again for an opinion from a Handwriting Expert.

¶12

In these circumstances, where the Court has already expressed a prima facie view that there are notable differentiations in the entries, it would not be necessary to send the said entries for further opinion.

¶13

¶14

In view thereof this Civil Revision Petition is allowed leaving it open to the trial Court to arrive at a decision as to whether there are such variations and what is the effect of such variations in the ink, handwriting and over writings in these two entries. There shall be no orders as to costs.

¶15

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

¶16

_________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶17

Date: 08.12.2021 SPP

¶18

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶20

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.6734 of 2017

¶21

Date: 08.12.2021

¶22

SPP

Kuraganti Chenna Rao v. Kuraganti Yesobu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuraganti Chenna Rao v. Kuraganti Yesobu

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

Konala Padmavathi Vs Dwarampudi Kasamma (Died) and 3 Others

M.Murthaiah Vs Vajje Subbalakshmi

Vummethala Krishna Mohan, Hyd Vs Vummethala Madhu Mohan, Guntur Dist and 4 Others