Dismissed

Hrishikesh Yadav v. Harihar Yadav

Chhattisgarh HC11 Aug 2024WP227/235/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendants sought expert comparison of signatures to test a family settlement deed; trial court rejected it since deceased defendant had not denied execution. Single judge dismissed the writ petition under Article 227 and directed expedited trial.

What the court decided

AI extract

Hrishikesh Yadav Vs Harihar Yadav — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:30295

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 235 of 2020

¶6

Hrishikesh Yadav S/o Late Shri Jadbo Yadav, Aged About 70 Years R/o Village - Pasena, Thana And Tahsil - Lundra, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Ratnaker S/o Shri Hrishikesh Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Pasena, Thana And Tahsil - Lundra, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Defendants )

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

Harihar Yadav S/o Late Shri Jadbo Yadav, Aged About 62 Years Occupation - Agriculturist, Retd Government Employee R/o Fundurdihari Godhanpur, Thana And Tahsil - Ambikapur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff ),

¶11

Smt. Kumari Bai W/o Shri Hrishikesh Yadav, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village - Pasena, Thana And Tahsil - Lundra, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh.,

¶12

Someshwar S/o Shri Hrishikesh Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Pasena, Thana And Tahsil - Lundra, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh.,

¶13

Damrudhar S/o Shri Hrishikesh Yadav, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Pasena, Thana And Tahsil - Lundra, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh.,

¶14

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Ambikapur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh. (Defendants ),

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

For Petitioners : Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Shri Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent/State: Shri Sachidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer.

¶17

KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

¶19

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2024.08.12 17:17:39 +0530

2 / 3

Order On Board

12/08/2024 :

This petition has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 27^th January, 2020 whereby the application preferred by the petitioners/defendants under Order 26 Rule 10 of the CPC for obtaining specimen from the Court record to show that the signatures of the deceased/defendant No.1 in the Family Settlement deed dated 8^th June, 1993 has been forged, was dismissed.

¶24

Facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession on the ground that a family settlement has arrived on 8.6.1993, in which deceased/defendant No.1 Jadbo has filed a written statement. When the matter reached to the stage of defendants’ evidence, an application has been moved for comparing the signatures of deceased/defendant No.1 with the questioned document of family settlement by the expert, however, the said application was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence this petition.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as the signatures of the deceased/defendant No.1 in the written statement and the questioned document of family settlement dated 8.6.1993 are different, obtaining of specimen is necessary to establish the case of the defendants. However, the said application was dismissed which is not proper. Learned counsel prays that the impugned order may be quashed and the writ petition may be allowed.

¶26

3 / 3

¶27

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff would submit that in the written statement filed by the deceased/defendant No.1, he has admitted execution of the alleged questioned document of family settlement deed dated 8.6.1993 and would refer clause-6 & 17 of the written statement. He would submit that in the written statement, the deceased/defendant No.1 has not specifically denied execution of the said deed and only for causing delay, the said application was filed. The present writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition carefully.

¶29

Perusal of the averment made in the written statement of the deceased/defendant No.1 would show that there is no specific denial about execution of the questioned family settlement deed by the defendant on 8.6.1993. Therefore, filing of such application for examining the expert when the deceased/defendant No.1 himself has not disputed the said document, was not necessary and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the same, and no interference is warranted invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

For the foregoing, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the concerned Court is directed to expedite the trial.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶33

Judge

¶34

Barve

Hrishikesh Yadav v. Harihar Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Hrishikesh Yadav v. Harihar Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Onkar Sahu Vs Raspal Singh

Ramkhilawan Nirmalkar Vs Tulesh Vaishnav

Smt. Asha Devi Vs Smt. Seema Singh

Smt. Meena Agrawal Vs H. D. B. Financial Service Limited

Surendra Aayam Vs Magma Fincorp Ltd.

Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ld, Vs M/S Rajpootana Chables and Conductors Vt. Ltd.