Allowed

P.Veera Raghavulu v. Pallapu Krishna Murthy

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Oct 2024CRP/280/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed civil revisions challenging the trial court's dismissal of applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The court held the trial court erred in dismissing the petitions due to alleged time gaps, as admitted signatures from writ petitions (2006) were sufficiently close to the disputed documents for expert comparison.

What did the court decide?

Revision petitions C.R.P.Nos.280 & 282/2023 allowed; Impugned orders dated 21.11.2022 setting aside C.R.P.Nos.280 & 282/2023 quashed.

P.Veera Raghavulu Vs Pallapu Krishna Murthy — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC010062302023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

[3311]

¶4

TUESDAY, T HE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO T H OUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.280 & 282/2023

¶8

Between :

¶9

P.Veera Raghavulu and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

¶10

AND

¶11

Pallapu Krishna Murthy ...RESPONDENT

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶13

1.SURYAM GANNA V ARAPU

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶15

1.YADAVALLI RAM E SH

¶16

The Court made the following:

¶17

¶18

BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.280 & 282 of 2023

¶19

COMMON ORDER :

¶20

C.R.P.No.280 of 2023 is directed against the order, dated 21.11.2022, dismissing I.A.No.790 of 2022 in O.S.No.107 of 2015 on

¶21

the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 151 CPC to send the suit agreement of sale, dated 22.12.2003, executed by the defendant in favour of the sole plaintiff to the government handwriting expert for examination and comparison of the signatures of the executant (defendant) contained therein with that of his admitted signatures and render his opinion as to its correctness/genuineness. Whereas, C.R.P.No.282 of 2023 is directed against the order, dated 21.11.2022, dismissing I.A.No.788 of 2022 in O.S.No.106 of 2015 on the file of the same Court to send the suit agreement of sale, dated 22.12.2003, to the government handwriting expert for examination and comparison of the signatures of the executant (defendant) contained therein with that of his admitted signatures and render his opinion as to its correctness/genuineness.

¶22

Heard Sri G.Suryam , learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs. Though vakalat for the respondent was not filed in C.R.P.No.282 of 2023, submissions of Sri Yadavalli Ramesh , learned counsel appearing

¶23

¶24

BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.280 & 282 of 2023

¶25

for the same respondent in C.R.P.No.280 of 2023 were heard permitting him to file vakalat for the respondent in C.R.P.No.282 of 2023 also.

¶26

Since the parties in both these revisions are one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of through this common order. The parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as the ‘plaintiffs’ and the ‘defendant’ for the purpose of convenience and clarity.

¶27

The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:

¶28

Originally, the sole plaintiff filed the suits against the defendant for specific performance of suit agreements of sale, dated 22.12.2003 and 13.04.2005 that were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property. The defendant filed written statement denying the very execution of the suit documents. The suits stand posted to 12.10.2022. Pending the suits, the sole plaintiff died intestate on 10.06.2019 and plaintiffs 2 to 5 have been brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff. In view of the stand taken by the defendant in the written statement, the plaintiffs were advised to file petition with a prayer to send the suit documents to a handwriting expert for rendering opinion with regard to the genuineness of the signature of the defendant therein.

¶29

¶30

BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.280 & 282 of 2023

¶31

The respondent/defendant filed counter denying the petition averments and contending that he never executed the alleged suit agreement(s) of sale at any point of time and that he borrowed an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the deceased 1^st plaintiff towards hand loan and as he failed to discharge the said amount in time, the suit agreement(s) of sale was (were) created by forging the signature of the defendant with a view to grab the plaint schedule property. The contemporaneous signatures were not furnished. The petition(s) are not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed.

¶32

The plaintiffs reiterated their pleaded case in the grounds of revisions.

¶33

The contention of the revision petitioners is that the trial Court committed serious error in dismissing the petitions merely on the ground that the petitioners failed to provide signatures of the respondent/ defendant on a document of a contemporary period ignoring a material fact that the agreement of sale in C.R.P.No.282 of 2023 is dated 13.04.2005 and the suit was filed in the year 2006 numbered as O.S.No.220 of 2006 and later renumbered as O.S.No.106 of 2015, whereas, in C.R.P.No.280 of 2023, the agreement of sale is dated 22.12.2003 and the suit was filed in the year 2006 and numbered as O.S.No.219 of 2006 and later re-numbered as O.S.No.107 of 2015 and

¶34

¶35

BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.280 & 282 of 2023

¶36

thus, the written statement of the defendant was filed way back in the year 2006, and therefore, the record in the suit itself is sufficient to provide the admitted signatures of the defendant relating to contemporary period of the disputed document.

¶37

The learned counsel for the revision petitioners further stated that the original plaintiff died, and thereafter, his legal representatives were added as plaintiffs 2 to 5, and therefore, they could file the petition only after their appearance in the suit and as such, the delay, if any, in filing the petitions can not be seriously attributable to the petitioners as laches on their part. He further stated that it is for the expert to state whether the signatures provided are fit for comparison or not , even for the reason of length of the period between the disputed signature and the admitted signature, and therefore, on no ground, the relief can be rejected, but the trial Court erroneously dismissed the petitions.

¶38

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the trial Court and prayed to dismiss the revisions.

¶39

In Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad Vs. Ravi Surya

¶40

Prakash Babu and others¹ , this High Court held as follows:

¶41

1 AIR 2016 AP 118

¶42

¶43

BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.280 & 282 of 2023

¶44

”The Court is however not barred from sending the disputed handwriting/signature for comparison to an expert merely because the time gap between the admitted handwriting/ signature and the disputed handwriting/signature is long. The Court must however endeavour to impress upon the petitioning party that comparison of disputed handwritings/ signatures with admitted handwritings/ signatures, separated by a time lag of 2 to 3 years, would be desirable so as to facilitate expert comparison in accordance with satisfactory standards. That being said, there can be no hard and fast rule about this aspect and it would ultimately be for the expert concerned to voice his conclusion as to whether the disputed handwriting/signature and the admitted handwriting/signature are capable of comparison for a viable expert opinion. The view expressed by the Division Bench in Janachaitanya Housing Limited V/s. Divya Financiers² , as to the stage of the proceedings when an application can be moved by a party under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, continues to hold the field and there is no necessity for this Full Bench to address that issue."

¶45

As rightly contended by the revision petitioners, the trial Court failed to notice that the agreement of sale is dated 22.12.2003 (and it is dated 13.04.2005 in C.R.P.No.282 of 2023), and as the written statements were filed after institution of the suits in the year 2006, the time gap between the disputed signature and the admitted signature on

¶46

2 AIR 2008 AP 163

¶47

¶48

BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.280 & 282 of 2023

¶49

the vakalat and written statement of the defendant would not be so long as to consider them as unfit for comparison on account of the time gap. It seems that as the trial Court was under the impression that the suits were filed in the year 2015, and therefore, as the suit agreements are of the years 2003 and 2005 respectively, and as no other record of that relevant period was filed by the petitioners, the applications were dismissed. Under these circumstances, the observation of the trial Court in dismissing the petitions is erroneous. The opinion of an expert on the disputed signature would enable the Court to arrive at a just conclusion. As such, the orders impugned in these revisions need to be interfered with.

¶50

In the result, the revision petitions are allowed and I.A.Nos.790 of 2022 and 788 of 2022 are allowed setting aside the order, dated 21.11.2023, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, at Addanki, in I.A.No.790 of 2022 and 788 of 2022 in O.S.No.106 of 2015.

¶51

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶53

___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J

¶54

15-10-2024 RAR

P.Veera Raghavulu v. Pallapu Krishna Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Veera Raghavulu v. Pallapu Krishna Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rayabarapu Babu, Vs Ex-Officio Secy.,Food and Civil Supplies,a.P.

Vavilapalli Satyam Naidu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Devavarapu Nookaraju, Vs Prl.Secy., Irrigation dept., State of A.P.

P Veera Raghavulu Vs Pallapu Krishna Murthy

Mandalapu Vijaya Lakshmi Vs Kodali Nischal Deep

Jasti Naga Lakshmi Vs Revada Rama Devi