Telangana High Court
Gade Rajender Reddy Died Per Lrs vs Banala Baswaiah on 1 March, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3840 AND 3844 OF 2023
COMMON ORDER:
The lis involved in these civil revision petitions and the parties are one and the same. Therefore, the same were heard together and decided by way of this common order:-
2. Heard Mr. G.Rama Chandra Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Poldili Hari Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents.
(for sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in suit O.S.No.36 of 2010)
3. Originally 1st petitioner i.e. Late Gade Rajender Reddy filed suit vide O.S.No.36 of 2010 against respondents to declare him as owner of the suit schedule property i.e. Plot No.9 out of Sy.No.93/B corresponding to new No.115/B admeasuring 375sq.yards situated at Prakashreddypet, Subedari, Kazipet Jagir, Hanumakonda Mandal, Warangal District; dispossess the defendants and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to him and also mandatory injunction to demolish the structures over the suit schedule property. 2 He died on 27.03.2020. After his death, his two sisters have come on record as plaintiffs as he has no other legal heirs to pursue the suit.
4. The said suit was posted for judgment after hearing the arguments of the parties.
5. The petitioners 2 and 3 herein have filed two Interlocutory Applications i.e. 1112 of 2023 and I.A.No.1223 of 2023. I.A.No.1112 of 2023 is filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to compare the disputed signatures of Gade Anthonamma on Ex.B.1 and also on Ex.A.17 with the admitted signatures on certified copy of the agreement of sale dated 08.06.1986 attested by Pingali Sambasiva Rao, Advocate/Notary. I.A.No.1223 of 2023 is filed under Order XIII Rule 10 of CPC, to call for the original document/original notarized agreement of sale dated 08.06.1986 executed by late Gade Anthonamma in favour of S.Shankaraiah, S/o. Vishwanadham, filed in O.S.No.324 of 2008 from II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, for consideration and sending the same to Expert for comparison with Ex.B.1 disputed document.
6. The petitioner herein has filed the said Interlocutory Applications on the following grounds:-
3
i. The petitioners 2 and 3 herein/plaintiffs 2 and 3 have filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and declaration of title etc., in respect of suit schedule property.
ii. The respondents/defendants have set up a false and forged agreement of sale said to have been executed by late Gade Anthonamma, their grandmother in favour of respondent No.1/D.1.
iii. They further set up a case that it was attested by Pingali Sambasiva Rao, Advocate/Notary and the said document was marked as Ex.B.1. The said document is forged and fabricated by respondent No.1/D.1 with the assistance and active participation of Gade Jaya Prakash Reddy, who is playing the game from behind the screen.
iv. Plaintiff No.1 filed a suit in respect of other plots particularly O.S.No.324 of 2008 against one S. Shankaraiah before II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal and the original agreement of sale executed by late Gade Anthonamma dated 08.06.1986 was filed by 1st plaintiff. Later the said suit was disposed of.4
v. They have filed the said application before the trial court for comparison of the disputed signatures on Ex.B.1 with the signatures on the certified copy of agreement dated 08.06.1986 which was filed by them in O.S.No.324 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. Since the respondents/ defendants are objecting for sending the certified copy without the original document to determine and settle the main issue between the parties, the original agreement of sale dated 08.06.1986 is to be called from II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal from O.S.No.324 of 2008. The said document is essential and important. Therefore, it is to be called for the purpose of sending the signatures for comparison. No prejudice will be caused to the defendants. vi. With the said submissions they have filed the aforesaid two Interlocutory Applications.
7. The respondents/defendants have filed counter opposing the said application contending as follows:-
i. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 themselves brought on record as Class-II legal heirs and successors of 1st plaintiff by concealing other 5 Class-II legal heirs and by way of misrepresentation and obtained orders in their favour.
ii. The allegation of petitioners 2 and 3 that the signature on Ex.B.1 agreement of sale is forged and fabricated is false and baseless.
iii. Ex.B.1 is genuine document and executed by Gade Anthonamma. Thus, it is impossible to compare the signatures on Ex.B.2 which is Encumbrance Certificate. iv. They have filed the aforesaid Interlocutory Applications with abnormal delay only to drag on the proceedings. v. Earlier petition, the petitioners clearly mentioned as Ex.B.1 but intentionally they mentioned as Ex.B.2. vi. They have stated elaborated story but mentioned Ex.B.2 Encumbrance Certificate to compare with the document which is going to transfer from O.S.No.324 of 2008. Thus, they are trying to stall the pronouncement of judgment in the present suit.
8. Learned trial court dismissed the said Interlocutory Applications holding that there is no finding that agreement of sale dated 08.06.1986 was executed by learned Gade Anthonamma and the 6 said document is genuine and the signature of late Anthonamma on the said agreement of sale dated 08.06.1986 is genuine. Without such finding, it is not proper to call for the said document and send for comparison. Moreover, the petitioners 2 and 3 herein have filed the said applications when the matter is posted for hearing.
9. Mr. G.Rama Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that no time may be fixed for filing applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the disputed signatures to the handwriting expert for comparison, the same shall be left open to the discretion of the Court for exercising such discretion. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad in Janachaitanya Housing Limited vs. Divya Fiannciers 1 and Full Bench Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Ravi Surya Prakash Babu (died ) per L.Rs. 2.
10. The plaintiff No.1 died on 27.03.2020 and the petitioners 2 and 3 came on record. P.W.3 examination was over on 21.11.2023. 1 2008(3) ALT 409 (DB) 2 2016 (2) ALT 248 FB 7 They have filed the present applications on 28.08.2023 i.e. before closure of plaintiff's evidence. During the evidence of P.W.3, they have marked certified copy of agreement of sale dated 08.06.1986. There is no dispute with regard to the execution of the said agreement of sale by paternal grandmother of petitioners in favour of S.Shankaraiah and the same is marked as Ex.B.1 in O.S.No.324 of 2008 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. Without considering the said aspects, the trial Court dismissed the said Interlocutory Applications filed by the petitioners 2 and 3 calling for the said document and sending the same to the Expert for comparison of the signatures which is relevant to prove that the claim of defendants is false.
11. Whereas, Sri Podili Hariprasad, learned counsel appearing for respondents would submit that the petitioners have filed the aforesaid two Interlocutory Applications with abnormal delay. The suit is of the year 2010. They came on record in the year 2020 itself and the suit is posted for arguments. They are trying to delay the said proceedings.
12. As discussed supra, 1st plaintiff had filed the aforesaid suit against the respondents/defendants for declaration of title, mandatory 8 injunction and recovery of possession. According to him, her paternal grandmother by name Gade Anthonamma was the original owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. Said Gade Anthonamma has two sons i.e. Gade Stanslas Reddy, father of the plaintiffs and Gade Jayaprakash Reddy. She is also having land in Sy.Nos.93/B and Sy.No.102 which were converted into plots, out of which plot Nos.1 to 24 belongs to Gade Anthonamma and plot Nos.25 to 46 belongs to father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff's grandmother sold 14 plots during her lifetime and after her death, remaining 10 plots were divided by her two sons equally. Plot Nos.4,5,9,15 and 21 were fell to the share of plaintiff's father. Plot Nos.7,11,12,13 and 17 were fell to the share of plaintiff's junior paternal uncle Gade Jayaprakash Reddy, who sold out his total plots, including Plot Nos.15 and 21 which fell to the share of plaintiff's father illegally. O.S.No.324 and 327 of 2008 are pending on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. After death of plaintiff's father, their mother gifted plot No.9 to the plaintiffs vide gift deed No.12049/2007 dated 20.12.2007. The defendants illegally occupied the said plot without having any right or title over the suit schedule property. Their paternal uncle Mr. Jayaprakash Reddy, transferred the suit schedule property in the 9 name of Smt. Manemma/D.2 in December, 2009 and she has obtained necessary permissions and proceeding with construction. The defendants have no right over the suit schedule property.
13. The defendants have filed written statement denying the said contentions of the plaintiffs. D.2 purchased an extent of 375 sq.yards i.e. plot No.9 from the said Gade Anthonamma under agreement - cum - sale deed dated 20.01.1986 for a valid sale consideration. The same was notarized on 20.01.1986. She has inducted D.2 in the suit schedule property. Since then she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. Later to avoid further complications, D.2 got registered the same vide Doc.No.7899 of 2009 dated 02.12.2009 executed by Gade Jaya Prakash Reddy, the second son of Gade Anthonamma on the basis of agreement - cum - sale deed executed by his mother. Therefore, they never forged the signatures of Gade Anthonamma as alleged by the petitioners 2 and 3.
14. It is relevant to note that D.2 had filed the said written statement on 13.12.2011. As discussed supra, 1st plaintiff died on 27.03.2020. Petitioners 2 and 3 came on record as his legal heirs. However, they have filed the present applications only on 02.08.2023. 10
15. It is the specific contentions of the respondents that the aforesaid two suits O.S.No.324 and 327 of 2008 are pending on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. There is no finding that the signature of Gade Anthonamma on the agreement of sale dated 0806.1986 is genuine and the said signature belongs to her. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondents, plaintiffs 2 and 3 cannot seek for original of the said document from O.S.No.324 of 2008 pending on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.
16. It is also relevant to note that expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, is only to assist the Court to come to correct conclusion with regard to the disputed document including forgery of signature. There is no dispute that it can be filed at any stage of the suit but at the same time, the petitioners have to explain the reasons for delay and also satisfy the trial Court with regard to sending of the signatures for comparison by laying foundation. In the present case, the suit is of the year 2018. Though plaintiff No.1 died on 27.03.2020, the petitioners 2 and 3 herein have come on record as plaintiffs 2 and 3 and filed the aforesaid two applications only on 28.08.2023. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the 11 said suit is posted for arguments. At this stage, the petitioners herein have filed the present applications. As rightly held by the trial Court, there is no finding in the said suit i.e. O.S.No.324 of 2008 that the signatures on the agreement of sale belong to Gade Anthonamma. The said suit O.S.No.324 of 2008 is pending on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. However, during the course of hearing, Sri S.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners 2 and 3 has filed certified copies of agreement of sale dated 08.06.1986 in O.S.No.324 of 2008 and agreement in O.S.No.36 of 2008. On perusal, the same were returned to him. Thus, there is delay in filing applications that too, without explaining the reasons satisfactorily. On considering the said aspects only, the learned trial court dismissed the said applications. It is a reasoned order. There is no error in it. The petitioners failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, these two revisions are liable to be dismissed.
17. In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. The suit is of the year 2010. Therefore, learned trial Court shall dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
12
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Dated:01.03.2024 Vvr Note: certified copies agreement of sale dated 08.06.1986 in O.S.No.324 of 2008 and agreement in O.S.No.36 of 2008 were returned to the learned counsel for the petitioners in the open court. b/o vvr.