Allowed

Mohd. Saleem v. Talla Sanjeeva Reddy and 5 Others

Telangana HC9 Jun 2021CRP/2483/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court reviewed a lower court's dismissal of interim applications seeking thumb impression verification and forensic examination of a disputed sale deed. Noting the specific allegation of impersonation and availability of forensic methods, the Court allowed the petitions and set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The order under revision was set aside; Civil Revision Petitions allowed conditioned on the petitioner paying Rs. 40,000 to respondent No. 1 within three weeks. IA applications stand allowed for thumb

Mohd. Saleem Vs Talla Sanjeeva Reddy and 5 Others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM C.R,P N Os: 2 443 and 83 0F 2016

¶5

Petitions under Articre 227 0f constitution of rndia Aggrieved by the Judgments dated 1810412016 in r.A.Nos.592 and 593 0f 2016 in o.s.No.125 0f 20040n the fire of the Court of the principal Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel.

¶6

Between:

¶7

Mohd Saleem, S/o. IVohd y,o:r:llS:g about 45 years, Occ: Agricutture and business, l-tesident of H.No. s_2_422, p.";i;;pi,;; Tiy"d"'$d+;,;*.opErr,oNER/pLArN,FF

¶8

AND

¶9

'1 . Talla Sanieeva Reddv. S/o. Vp.e ra ReQly, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.^pudur Viilaoe Rirvenue Ma;dai, tM;A;"rt, Fir;g, Reddy District. -

¶10

2 ltohq: Sattar,, SJo. ru,torro. yaJeenl;;;;6;;i iIyurr., occ: private Driver ^^{R/o. H.No. 9-2-486, peiisionpurj, l"n-r#iio*u]} nvderabad 3. Linsama Charv. S/o. Narayana. RgeJ%;";;51;ris, Resident of Revot Kote .^{Vittaget,Iedciiat ll4andal, fteOov} ditri"ivv!^{rv veor}

¶11

sharK tsabu lvliva. s/o. Shaik Mahaboob, Aged about 5.r years, occ: Aqricurture -^{Yg, Bq:qurpu-r Viilage,nevenuervanJii 'trrlril]ii"ark} Distrit s. {akkadi Venkamma, wro .Anti .Reddv, Ag"J ,b"lt''6a vJalslbi", Househord, ^^{Fl/o. Kucharam, Toopran lr,/andal, lVe'cja k"DGtr;t -' "} ri r a a rVrurrinder Reddv. S/o T. sanjeeva Reddy, Aged aboul24 years, occ: As ri c u rtu re, R/o^p ud u r,,".:Hl $;[t;J tr+gffiBt% *'g-"+;.;. * ^_r.

¶12

t.A. NO: 1 0F 2016(CRPMP. NO: 3110 0F 2016

¶13

Petitions under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay ail further proceedings in may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in os No.1 2512004 on the file of the court of principal Junior civil Judge, Gajwel, Medak District.

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(CRPM P. NO: and 315I OF 2016)

¶15

Petitions 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 stay all fudher proceedings in os.No.125 of 2004 on the file of the court of principal Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel, Medak District.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI PENJURI VENUGOPAL

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI CH. SIDDHARTHA SARMA

¶18

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICECHALLAKODANDAILAM} of 2016 CIVIL^REVISIO NP[,Tl^Tlo N N os. 2413 and²⁴⁸³ COM^MONORDER:

¶20

These^{Civil Revision Petitionsare filed against the} common^{orderclatcd 18.04'2016passedbythe learned PrinciPal} Junior^{Civil Jucige,Gajwel' dismissingl'A'Nos 592 and 593 of} 2015 in^{O.S.No.125of 2004' filed by the petitioner/plaintiff} praying for^{taking the samples of thumb impressionsof himself} and respondent^{No.2 and to send the same along with originai} registered^{saledeed to the forensic laboratory for comparisonand} report, and^{to direct respondent No'1 to produceoriginal} registered^{saledeed. respectivcly'}

¶21

The petitioner^{asserts that he purchased the suit schedulc} property through^{registered salc deed bearing document} No.1160/1979^{dated 15.06.1979;that pattadar pass books were} issued and^{entties were made in his favour; that he bonowed} certain monies by^{mortgaging the property tiom the Land} Mortgage Bank^{at Ga.iwel, which was tlergedwith Medak} District Cer-rtral^{Coopcrative Bank, Medakat Sangareddy,ar.rd} that having come to^{know that respondentNos'l to 6, by} colluding each other,^{had broughtinto existence the sale deed} bearing document^{No.94912001 dated 30.03'2001 with respectto} the suit schedule^{property,he filed the aforesaid suit for the}

¶22

CKR, J C R P Nos 2aa3 and 2483 of20l6

¶23

¶24

reliefs menrioned in the plaint. ln the said suit, he had filed the subject I.A.s secking the respectivc reliefs.

¶25

Counter-affidavits are filed resisting the said I.A.s, more particularly, stating that on earlier occasion, I.A.No.355 of 2013 was filed by defendant Nos.l,3,5 and 6 and pursuant to the same, the finger print expert was examined through AdvocateCommissioner and there was any plea raised by the^petitioner with respect to sending the said^{document and obtaining expert} opinion and that^{the applications are filed at the fag end of the} case i.e., at the stage^{of arguments and thus, they do not deserve} any consideration,^{as, the same were filed only to drag on the suit} proceedings.

¶26

After considering^{the oral and tlocumentary evidence'the} Court below^{passedthe order under revision dismissing the I'A's'} I lencc, these^{Civil Rcvision Petitionsare filed'}

¶27

Learned^{coun-'sel fbr the petitionercontendsthat respondent} No.2, by^{impersonating the petitioner' had executed a sale deed} in favour^{ofrespondent No'1 and thereafter'havingrealizedthat} the document^{obtained by him had no validity,once again, got} executed^{another documentby respondentNo'l in favour of his} son, respondcnt^{No'6'I lc lurther contends that it is only on} account of^{lack of knowledgeon the part ol the counsel, who} were appearing^{earlier for the petitioner' thc petitionsceking to} send the^{docutnentfor verification olthe thumbirnpres5is6s was}

¶28

CI(R, J C R.P.Nos.2443 and^{2483ot 2016}

¶29

¶30

not filed. Fle also contends^{that the petitioner filedthe suit onlyto} t Ilnd out the truth or othcrwise^{o1'thesaledeed got cxecr'r1edby} respondcnt Nos.l and 2, thcreby,^{pravs lor sctting aside the order} r.rnder revision.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, while vehemently opposing these Civil Revision Petitions, would submit that the petitioner filed the subject I.A.s al the belated stage and at any rate, in terms of Order XVI Rule 6 CpC, the said I.A.s ought to have been filed at the earliest point o[time and that the respondents are being put to untold misery on account of dragging the matter since 2004 and hence, prays for dismissal of these Civil Revision petitions.

¶32

Having considered the respective submissions, it is appropriate to extracl the rclevant portion ol paragraph 6 of the plaint, which reads as undcr:

¶33

"6. It is.submined that in the first week ofJanuary. 2002. the delendant no.l along with anti_social elements high handedly came to suit land and occupied the suit land stating that he is the owner of the suir schedule-.A. land as he purchased under the Registered Sale Deed and denied title ofthe plaintiffover 1he suir schedule_.A. Iand. Then the plaintifl made enquiry in the oltice of the Sub-Registrar, Gajwel in the first week of January, 2002 and obtained on 15.1.2002 a Certified copy of rlre Registered Sale Deed No.949l2001, dated:30.i.2001 which is more iully described in the schedule-.B. arrached hereto. It is submitted that the def.endant No.l hatched a plan to gr.ab rhe suit land with the assistance of thc defendants No.2 to 4 and crcatecl the said Registered Sale

¶34

<6!b . -*:-

¶35

CI(R, J C.R P Nos.2a43 and 2483 of20l6

¶36

¶37

Deed, nrentioning their in the plaintiff herein^{as executant} of fie said document. [n fact, the defendant^No.2, impersonated the plaintiff and forged^{the signature of the} plaintitT and cleated the said document. The^said document covers tlie schedule-'A'^{land. In thesaid} docurnent the delendant No.l,^{name is mentionedas} purchaser r,,'tiich is attested by the^{defendant no.3,4.The} said document is scribed^{by D Satyanarayana Raothe} docrrurenl writer. The said^{Sale Deed fLrrthel showsthat} younger brother of the plaintiff by^{name Mohd. Raheem} has signed as Identifier^{of tlle executant. In fact. younger} brother of the plaintiff by^{name Raheem has not signed} the document, nor^{wsre present at that time.The} defendant no.l to 4^{have also impersonated} Mohd. Raheem^{withsomebody else. It is submitted that} the dei'endant No.4^{is acquaintedwith the plaintilT andhe} knows the plaintitT^{is the absoluteownerof the suit land,} since lre was one of^{the witnesses to tlre Sale Deed} No.l 160 of^{1979 urrder whichthe plaintiflhaspurchased} the suit schedule-'A'^{tand. [t is submittedthat the} deferldants hatched^{a plan and got lbrged the signature ol} the plaintifl thlough^{the def'endant No.2and also fbrged} the signature of^{Mohd.Raheem on theschedule-'B'} document. It is submitted^{that the deltndantno 2 whose} nan.re is Mohd. Sattar.^{S/o Mohd. Yaseen. R/o. Hyderabad} posing lrirnsell as plaintill'^{and made lalse representatiotl} belore the revetrue^{authorities and fi'audulentlyobtained} pass book and title deed^{bearirrgNo. Y.674594in the} name of the plaintilf^{by affixing his photographon the} pass book and tille deed'^{andthus cheated the plaintiff,} the Revenue authorities^{and also the Sub-Registrar'} Gaiwel, stating that^{he himsellis Md'Saleem(the} plaintiffl i.e., original owner^{of land coveredunder} schedule-'B'^{document.The delendant no 1, 2 have} presented the document^{before the Sub-Registrar, Gajwel} and tl.re defendant^{no.2 has signed as the executantby} forging the^{signatureof the plaintiffand impersonated the} plaintiff'. The defendants^{no.3 and 4 knowinglythatthe} det'endant no.2 is^{not the realpersonand also}

¶38

CKR, J C.R.P.Nos 2'rq3^{and 2183 of20i6}

¶39

¶40

I I

¶41

impersonating the real owner have^{signedthe document} as identitying u'itness and attesting^{witnesses.thtrsthe} schedule-'B' document brought into^{whichis a sham.} bogus concocted, tbrged void document.^{It is subnlitted} the defendant no.l is the benellciary besides^the defendant no.2. The defendant no.l claims the^property under the concocted void document and the defendant no.2 swallowed the amount which was alleged to have been paid by the defendant no.l to him as mentioned in the document. The defbndant no.2 to 4 have signed the said document for their vested interest and selfish ends."

¶42

In essence, the above paragraph discloses that there is a specific pleading that respondcnt No.2/delendant No.2 in collusion with other respondents had brought into existence the document in issue by irnpersonating the petitioner belbre the Sub-Rcgistrar.^'f he documenl in issLre was executed in 200 I . lt is not possible at this stagc lor appreciatingr'presenting ar)y other cvidencc. Howevcr, under the procedurc lbr rcgistration ol' docr"rments, the tl.rumb imprcssion oI the executants is required to be affixed both on the document and in the Ii.egister being rraintained by the Office of the Sub-Registrar. In the realm of forensic science, no two thumb imprcssions are alike in tlre world. When the allegation is of impersonation, the first test would be veriflcation ol the thurnb irnprcssion whicl.r was altlxcd on the documcnts execr,rted. [n the case on l.rand. there is mr,rch delay in filing the sub.ject I.A.s and almost 400 days thereafter, in 2016, these CItPs came to be filed. When there is a possibility of

¶43

obtaining best possible evidence so as to resolve the subject issue

¶44

6 ctiR, J c R^p _os.2.{43 and )483 at 20to

¶45

t t

¶46

and when there is a scientific rnethod to prove the allegations of the nature in the present case, in mosl effective manner, the delay caused, lor whatever reason, should not comc in the way. In the circumstances, the order under revision is liable to be set aside, however, subject to strict terms.

¶47

Accordingly, the order under^{revisionis set aside andthese} Civil Revisiiln^{Pctitior.rsare allowed subject to the cor-rditionof} the petitioncr paying a^{sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty} l'housand onty) to^{respondent No.1/defendant No'l throughthe} learned counsel^{appearingfor him in the suit, withina period of} three (3)^{weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order'} Consequently,^{the I.A.sstand allowed' Within four (4) weeks} thereafter,^{the entire exercise be initiated by the Court belowand} the trial shall^{be completedwithina period of six (6) months''Ihe} observations^{madeby this Court in the present ordershall be} confined^{only ibr the purpose of disposal of the presentCivil} Revision^Petitions'

¶48

Miscellaneousapplications,ilanypending,shallstand

¶49

S 1s. close d. t'here^{shall bct.toord eraSt()} SD/.K.ONESIM ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// ,\r/ SECTION^OFFICER

¶50

\ I I I

¶51

¶52

1 2 3, S:'ss^{lfsx #tfli*s',*hll'f;iriF,5ilff:,'} 4. Two^{CD CoPies} 5. One SPare^CoPY

TL gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0910612021

COMMON ORDER

CRP.Nos.2443 & 24A3 ot 2A16

¶58

1t-l e S 14
0 3 .iul 20?l
.()
''r-rcH

¶59

ALLOWNG C.R.P'S

¶60

)cu --l:'-+-

Mohd. Saleem v. Talla Sanjeeva Reddy and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Saleem v. Talla Sanjeeva Reddy and 5 Others

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

M/s Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf and 6 others

M/s Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf

M/S Alfa Laval (India) Ltd., Vs Mr. E. S. M. Dass

Mrs. VimalVasantKarwande Vs MohamemdGbouse Khan

M/s Sri Tulasi Industries Vs M/s Sri Sapthagiri Industries

Poloju Ramulu and Another Vs Sri B.Krishnam Raju and 2 Others