Allowed

Challa Ramadevi v. Rama Rama Rao and another

Telangana HC24 Apr 2023CRP/625/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the dismissal of an application to refer documents to a handwriting expert. The Single Judge allowed the petition, relying on the Full Bench decision that judicial comparison is less reliable than expert analysis, and directed the trial court to refer the disputed documents alongside a registered sale deed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. I.A. allowed. Petitioner directed to file certified copy of registered sale deed No.4493/2012. Documents to be sent to handwriting expert within 4 weeks.

Challa Ramadevi Vs Rama Rama Rao and another — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

i I I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 625 OF 2023

¶7

Petition under Anicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated.28.11.2022 passed in 1.A.No.341 ol 2O2O in O.S.No.486 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hanumkonda.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Challa Ramadevi, Wo. Maheshwar, aged 50 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o. H. No. 1 1 -25-835 I 1, Thummalakunta, Warangal.

¶10

...Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶11

AND

¶12

Rama Rama Rao, S/o. Upendram @ Upender, Age 54 years, Occ. Govt Teacher, Rl/o. H.No. 14-8-217, Charbowli Road, Girmajipet, Warangal.

¶13

Rama Mahalaximi, W/o Rama Rao, Age 46 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o. H.No. 14-8-217, Charbowli Road, Girmajipet. Warangal.

¶14

...RespondenUPetitioner/Plaintiff

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No. 486 of 2012 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Hanumkonda

¶17

t) .1 1{}

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V. ROHITH

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI ENNAMSETW AKHIL

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY CML REVISION PETITION No.625 of 2023

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Challenging the order dated 28.1 1.2022 passed by the learned Additional^Senior Civil Judge, Hanamkonda, in LA. No.34i^{of 2O2O in O.S.No.486 of 2072 whereby} the learned JuCge has^{dismissedthe application filed by} the^petitioner herein seeking^{to send the documentsunder Exs.B.S and 8.6} together^{with plan to the Hand Writing trxpertfor comparison of} the signatures^{anci for Expert opinion, the present CivilRevision} Petition^{is fiied}

¶24

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has stated that the trial^{Court withoutunderstanding} the true^purportof Section^{45 of the Indian EvidenceAct has come to the erroneous} conclusion that^{thepetitioner} h": not submitted the contemporaneous^documents to be^compared with the documents^{soughtto be sent to an Hand WritingExpertfor} an Expert opinion^{and rejectedthe} application liled by the petitioner. Learned counsel has further stated that the trial Court ought to^have asked the^petitioner to submit the contemporaneous documents for the purpose of comparing the signatures on the documents under Exs.B.S and 8.6 instead of

¶25

¶26

dismissing the said application.^{Learned counsel has lurther} cLintended that respondent No.2^{has executeda registcredgift} deed in favour of respondent^{No. 1 on the basis of un-registered} agreeflIent of sale dated^{22.04.2009purported to havebeen} executed by the petitioner.^{That trx.B.S is the said agreement-} of-sale and Ex.B.6 is the cash receipt^{alleged to havebeen} executed by the petitioner. Learned counsel^{has stated thatthe} execution of the said agreement-of-sale as well as the^cash receipts was denied in the plaint by the petitioner. Therefcre, the trial Court ought to have aliorved the I.A. filed by^the petitioner for sending the said documents to give a flrnding as to whether the signatures on the said documents are that of the petitioner or not. lrarned counsel has furLher stated that the lapses, if any, committed by the Advocate cannot be the reason for punishing the plaintiff. That there is a registered document (449312012l. of the year 2012, which is executed by the petitioner in favour of a third party, and the signature on the said document can be compareci with that of the signatures on the disputed documents. tearned counsel has strongly placed reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court reported in Bande Siua Shan,kara Sriniaasa Prasad o. Raui Surya Pra,kash Eabut and the un-reported^judgment passed by a

¶27

I AIR 20I6 HYDERABAD 118

¶28

¶29

learned Single Judge of the Madurai Bench of Madrash High Court in CRP (PD) (MD) No.1104 of 2018 dated 23.07.2Ot8, in support of his submissions.

¶30

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition and has stated that the I.A. filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the trial Court duly holding that the petitioner has hled the present application at a belated stage and that the contemporaneous documents were not filed. Learned counsel has ltirther stated that the present application is filed only to drag on the suit which is hled in the year 2012. That as a matter of fact, the I.A. is tiable to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay and laches. Even though the original suit is of the year 2072, the petitioner has hled the I.A. a-fter a iapse of more than 8 years at the fag end of the trial. That the conduct of the party is suspicious and the petitioner without hling any contemporaneous documents to compare the same with the signatures appended on Exs.B.S and El.6 has liled the present LA. and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the same. Learned counsel has further stated that it is not the duty of the Court to remind the petitioner or put him on notice to file the contemporaneous documents to compare the signatures on the \

¶31

¶32

disputeci documents, but for the petitioner to file the same along with the I.A. That the order impugned in the^{presentrevisiou} does not suffer from any inhrmity or illegality^{which warrants} any interference by this Court under Article 226 of^tlr-e Constitution of India. lrarned counsel has contended that the evidence of the plaintiff is over and D.W.3 was also examined and that the matter is ripe for arguments and therefore prayed this Hon'ble Court to dismiss the revision.

¶33

1. Perused the material on record.

¶34

Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner has filed O.S. No.486 of 2OI2 seeking cancellation of a registered gift deed executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No. 1. The said registered gift deed is dated O8.O2.2O12 and the source of title for the said gift deed is the unregistered agreement of sale dated 22.04.2009, which is purported to have been executed in favour of respondent No.2 by the petitioner herein. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has denibd the execr.rtion of any agreement of sale in favour, of respondent No.2 in the plaint. The question as to whetfier the signature on the said agreement of sale is that of the petitioner or not can be effectively adjudicated if the document is sent to a Hand-Writing Expert to compare the same with the signature of the petitioner with that of some other

¶35

¶36

contemporaneous documents. Even though the petitioner in the I.A. is seeking to send the documents under Exs.B.S and E}.6 to an Expert without stating as to what the contemporaneous document thal has to be sent for comparison, but the same cannot be a ground for rejecting the said I.A. Further, the trial Court has dismissed the I.A. on the ground that as per Section 73,ll:,e signatures or hand writing can also be compared by the Court itself and need not send the same to the Expert. There is no quarrel with the above proposition of law, but the trial Court ought to have seen that the opinion of an Expert dealing with hand writing for signatures is far more superior and reliable to that of comparison by the Court itself. The Court will not have necessary tools or expertise to verify the signatures, ink used, the strokes in the signature or any other discrepancies in the signatures, if any, etc. among other things.

¶37

6) In Bande Siva Sho,nkarrr Sriniaa.srr Prqsad (reJerred

¶38

supra), the Full Bench of this Court held as under:

¶39

"14. It is only too well known that the appearance of a signature depends on many factors. The type of pen used, the ink, the quickness of the flow of the pen, the paper on which it rvas written, the place where the signature is put e.9., a signature on a rough paper would not be exactly the same as that on a smooth paper. In the same way, a signature written with a rougl.r pen would not be the same as a signature with a

¶40

¶41

¶42

good srrrooth-writing pen. Sirnilarly if some smooth^pad or some such object is used for resting the^paper at^the time of the signature, then^{that signaturewouldbe} different from the signature^put on^{a paPer restingona} rough surface.

¶43

There are many lactors which have to^{tre taken} into consideration in eflecting a comparison of the^two signatures, and although a Court could apply^{its own} eyes zrnd its own mind to determine^r'r,hcther a^particular signature is resembling another it would be^going beyond the ordinary limits of the capacity of a Court^to constitute itself as a Handrvriting Expert and try to compare the signature without all the gadgets and devices which are available to a Handwriting Expert, besides the lack of expert knorvledge which a Handrvriting Expert possesses.^"

¶44

7l ln view of the discussion held in the preceding paragraphs coupled with the above proposition of ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court and having regard to the fact that there is a registered sale deed document bearing No.4493 /2012 dated 2L.O6.2OI2, executed by the petitioner in the year 2012 which can be construed as a contemporaneous document to compare with that of the disputed documents i.e. Exs.B.S and 8.6, this Court is of the view that tl.e impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶45

Accordingiy, the Civil Revision Pelition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and I.A. No.341 of 2O2O in O.S. No.486 of 2Ol2 on the Iile of Additional Senior Civil Judge,

¶46

¶47

Hanamkonda, is allowed. Ther petitioner is directed to file certified copy o[ the registercd sale deed bearing No.4493/2012 daLed 21.06.2O12 or the origirral document thereof (if available), before the trial Court within a pe riod of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such iiling, the trial Court shall send the disputed documents i.e. Exs.B.S and 8.6 along with registered document No.449312012 dated 21.06.2012, Vakalat, Plaint containing rhe original signature of the petitioner, to the Hand Writing Expert for comparison and opinion and obtain the report u,ithin a period of four weeks from the date of such referral. Thc said report of the Expert shall be taken on rccord duly furnishing a copy thereof to both the parties and thereafter the trial Court shall proceed further in the matter on its own merits.

¶48

Miscellaneous petitions pending in this revision, if any, shall stand closed. No costs

¶49

To,

¶50

SD/- P.PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (:l{J SECTiON^OFFICER

¶51