Allowed

P Veera Raghavulu v. Pallapu Krishna Murthy

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Oct 2024CRP/282/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitions against dismissal of applications to send suit agreements of sale to a handwriting expert for comparison with the defendant's admitted signatures. Holding that the record contained contemporary admitted signatures, the High Court allowed the revisions and permitted expert examination.

What did the court decide?

I.A.Nos.790 and 788 of 2022 allowed; trial Court order dated 21.11.2022 set aside; suit documents to be examined by handwriting expert.

P Veera Raghavulu Vs Pallapu Krishna Murthy — Specific Performance | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.280 & 282 of 2023

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.280 of 2023

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Aggrieved by the Order dated 21.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.790 of 2022 in O.S.No.107 of 2015, on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Addanki, Prakasam District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

P.Veera Raghavulu, (Died)

¶10

Thanniru Nagamalleswari, W/o. Nageswara Rao, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Valaparla Village, Martur Mandal, Bapatia District, A.P.

¶11

Thanniru Nagamani, W/o. Srinivasarao, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Martur Village, Martur Mandal, Bapatia District, A.P.

¶12

Pallapu Ravi Kumar, S/o. Late Veera Raghavulu, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Martur Village, Martur Mandal, Bapatia District, A.P.

¶13

Pallapu Anjamma, W/o. Late Veera Raghavulu, Aged about 63 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Martur Village, Martur Mandal, Bapatia District, A.P.

¶14

...Petitioners/ Petitioners/Plaintiffs

¶15

AND

¶16

Pallapu Krishna Murthy, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Martur Village and Mandal, Bapatia District, A.P.

¶17

...Respondent/Respondent/Defendant

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated'in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be • . pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S No. 107 of 2015, on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Addanki, pending disposal of the main CRP.

¶20

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶21

Between:

¶22

Pallapu Krishna Murthy, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged about 50 years, Occ; Cultivation, R/o. Martur Village and Mandal, Bapatia District, A.P.

¶23

...Petitioners/Respondent

¶24

AND

¶25

P.Veera Raghavulu, (Died)

¶26

Thanniru Nagamalleswari, W/o. Nageswara Rao, Aged^about43 years Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Valaparla Village, Martur Mandal, Bapatia District A.P.

¶27

Thanniru Nagamani, W/o. Srinivasarao, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Martur Village, Martur Mandal, Bapatia District, A.P.

¶28

Pallapu Ravi Kumar, S/o. Late Veera Raghavulu, Aged^about36 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Martur Village, Martur Mandal, Bapatia District A.P.

¶29

Pallapu Anjamma, W/o. Late Veera Raghavulu, Aged^about63 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Martur Village, Martur Mandal, Bapatia District A.P.

¶30

...Respondent/Petitioners

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate to stay granted on 10-02-2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in

¶32

¶33

CRPNo.280 of 2023 staying all further proceedings in OS No. 107 of 2015 on the file of the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, Prakasam District.

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioners :Sri Suryam Gannavarapu

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Yadavalli Ramesh

¶36

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.282 of 2023

¶37

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Aggrieved by the Order dated 21.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.788 of 2022 in O.S.No.106 of 2015, On the file of Senior Civil Judge at Addanki, Prakasam District.

¶38

Between:

¶39

P.Veera Raghavulu, (Died)

¶40

Thanniru Nagamalleswari, W/o. Nageswara Rao, Aged^about43 years, Occ; Cultivation, R/o. Valaparla Village, Martur Mandal, Bapatia District, A.P.

¶41

Thanniru Nagamani, W/o. Srinivasarao, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Martur Village, Martur Mandal, Bapatia District, A.P.

¶42

Pallapu Ravi Kumar, S/o. Late Veera Raghavulu, Aged^about36 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Martur Village, Martur Mandal, Bapatia District, A.P.

¶43

Pallapu Anjamma, W/o. Late Veera Raghavulu, Aged^about63 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Martur Village, Martur Mandal, Bapatia District, A.P.

¶44

...Petitioners/ Petitioners/Plaintiffs

¶45

AND

¶46

Pallapu Krishna Murthy, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Martur Village and Mandal, Bapatia District, A.P.

¶47

...Respondent/Respondent/Defendant

¶48

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶49

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in^{O.SNo. 106of2015,onthe} file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Addanki, pending disposal^of the main CRP.

¶50

Counsel for the Petitioners :Sri Suryam Gannavarapu Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Yadavalli Ramesh The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶51

APHC010062302023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶52

[3311]

¶53

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶54

PRESENT

¶55

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶56

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.280 & 282/2023

¶57

Between:

¶58

P.Veera Raghavulu and Others

¶59

...PETITIONER(S)

¶60

AND

¶61

Pallapu Krishna Murthy

¶62

...RESPONDENT

¶63

Counsel for the Petitioner(S);

¶64

1.SURYAM GANNAVARAPU

¶65

Counsel for the Respondent;

¶66

1.YADAVALLI RAMESH

¶67

The Court made the following:

¶68

¶69

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

¶70

m: 4j?.

¶71

COMMON ORDER:

¶72

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^of2015on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section^151CPCto 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/genuinen^ess. 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^of2015on the file of the same Court to send the suit agreement of sale, dated 22.12.2003, to the government handwriting expert for^{examinationand} 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.

¶73

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

¶74

¶75

«r

¶76

C.R.P.NOS.280&282 of 2023

¶77

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.

¶78

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

¶79

The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:

¶80

Originally, the sole plaintiff filed the suits against^{thedefendantfor} specific performance of suit agreements of sale, dated^{22.12.2003and} 13.04.2005 that were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property. The defendant^filedwritten 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.

¶81

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

¶82

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

¶83

in the grounds of 6. The plaintiffs reiterated their pleaded case revisions. the trial Court 7. The contention of the revision petitioners is that merely oh the ground committed serious error in dismissing the petitions the respondent; tnat the petitioners failed to provide signatures of a material defendant on a document of a contemporary period ignoring is dated fact that the agreement of sale in^{C.R.P.No.282of2023} 2006 numbered as filed in the year 13.04.2005 and the suit was O.S.No.106 of 2015, of 2006 and later renumbered as O.S.No.220 agreement of sale is dated whereas, in C.R.P.No.280 of 2023, the 2006 and numbered as 22.12.2003 and the suit was filed in the year O.S.No.107 of 2015 and O.S.No.219 of 2006 and later re-numbered as

¶84

¶85

¶86

BSBJ C.R.P.NOS.280& 282 of 2023

¶87

thus, the written statement of the defendant was filed^waybackinthe 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.

¶88

The learned counsel for the revision petitioners further^statedthat the original plaintiff died, and thereafter, his legal^{representativeswere} added as plaintiffs 2 to 5, and therefore, they could^{filethepetitiononly} after their appearance in the suit and as such, the^{delay,ifany,infiling} the petitions can not be seriously attributable to^the petitioners as laches on their part. He further stated that it is^{fortheexperttostate} whether the signatures provided are fit for comparison^ornot , even for the reason of length of the period between the disputed^signatureand on no ground, the relief can be the admitted signature, and therefore rejected, but the trial Court erroneously dismissed^thepetitions

¶89

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

¶90

In Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad Vs. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and others\ this High Court held as follows;

¶91

' AIR 2016 AP 118

¶92

¶93

BSBJ C.R.P.NOS.280& 282 of 2023

¶94

¶95

’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^asto facilitate expert comparison in accordance with satisfactory standards. That being said, there can be no hard and^fastrule 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 Financiers^ as to the stage^of the proceedings when an application can be moved by^aparty under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,^continues to hold the field and there is no necessity for this^FullBenchto address that issue."

¶96

trial Court 11. As rightly contended by the revision petitioners, the 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^signatureon

'AIR 2008 AP 163

BSBJ C.R.P.Nos.280 & 282 of 2023

¶101

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.

¶102

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.

¶103

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶104

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶105

SD/- A VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶106

//TRUE COPY//

¶107

To 1. The Senior Civil Judge at Addanki, Prakasam District.

¶108

¶109