Allowed

P M Tejaswini v. Gali Mohana Rama Naidu

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Jan 2024CRP/2588/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Honed a civil revision petition where the petitioner opposed a trial court order allowing comparison of signatures from a document dated 40 years prior to a disputed will. The High Court allowed the revision, granting liberty to produce a contemporaneous signature within three months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to produce a contemporaneous signature for comparison within 3 months; failing which, matter to be taken up for trial.

P M Tejaswini Vs Gali Mohana Rama Naidu — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2588 of 2023

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

O.S.No.47 of 2014 has been filed by the

¶4

petitioner/plaintiff against the defendants in the Court of the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, Chittoor District, for declaration and possession over the plaint schedule property.

¶5

The defendant Nos.5 & 6, in the main suit, had filed I.A.No.398 of 2023, for sending an unregistered will dated 09.04.1982, marked as Exhibit A-2 in the trial, for examination and comparison of the signatures of the will with admitted signatures of late Sri P.N. Munirathnam Naidu, who was the admitted owner of the property.

¶6

It is the case of the petitioner that the said will which is the basis of the suit is a fabricated will and the same could be compared, once the signature of late Sri P.N. Munirathnam Naidu said to be affixed on the said document is examined and compared with the other signatures. For this purpose, the petitioner relied upon a sale deed dated

¶7

¶8

04.06.1942 in which late Sri P.N. Munirathnam Naidu had signed.

¶9

The Trial Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the application, by an order dated 19.07.2023, holding that such comparison is permissible. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶10

It is settled law that any comparison of signatures, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, would have to be done by comparing the disputed signatures with the signatures which are contemporaneous in time. This principle has been evolved on the ground that the signatures of people change over a time and a proper comparison would be available only where the signatures are in close proximity in time.

¶11

In the present case, the signature offered for comparison is 40 years before the disputed signature. In such circumstances, it would only be appropriate to allow such a comparison. However, the rights of the petitioner for such comparison cannot be taken away on this ground alone.

¶12

¶13

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed modifying the order of the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, dated 19.07.2023 in I.A.No.398 of 2023 in O.S.No.47 of 2014 to the extent of giving liberty to the petitioner to produce a signature which is contemporaneous in time to the signature of Exhibit A-2, within a period of three (03) months, failing which the matter would be taken up for trial. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

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

¶15

__________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

12.01.2024 MJA

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶20

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2588 of 2023

¶21

12.01.2024

¶22

MJA

P M Tejaswini v. Gali Mohana Rama Naidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P M Tejaswini v. Gali Mohana Rama Naidu

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.v.Chinna Muragaiah, Vs Sri. J.L. Sharma IAS

Menthi Pentaiah Vs M. Jaya Babu

B Mallikarjuna Reddy Vs R Karikala Valaven

Gundlapalli Venkata Swamy, Vs Prof. a. Krishna Kumari

R.Govinda Reddy Vs R.Kodanda Reddy

Konapalle Venkatramana Reddy Vs D.Chandrappa