Village Development Committee ... vs Mohd Khalid Bin Ali And 6 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4013 Tel

          THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

               CIVIL REVISIOIN PETITION No.1368 OF 2022

ORDER:

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the orders

dt.14.03.2022 passed in I.A. No.11 of 2021 in O.S. No.29 of 2015 by the

Principal District Judge, Nizamabad. The said I.A.No.11 of 2021 was

filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 26 Rule 10(A) read with

Section 75(e) and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, which was

allowed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil

Revision Petition is filed by the respondents/defendants.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendant

as arrayed in the suit.

3. The suit in O.S. No.29 of 2015 is filed by the plaintiffs against

Village Development Committee, and Grampanchayat of Brahmanpally

village, Jakranpally Mandal, for declaration of title and recovery of

possession and for rectification of entries in the revenue records in

respect of suit lands. During pendency of the proceedings, I.A. No. 11 of

2021 is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. They stated that defendants in

their written statement stated that their (plaintiffs) father Mohd. Abdullah 2 PSS,J CRP No.1368 of 2022

Bin Ali sold the suit lands to them by executing sale deed in their favour

and basing on the said sale deed, mutation proceedings were issued and

submitted the sale deed and the statements signed by their father and got

them marked as Exs.B14 to B17, and Exs.B20 to B23. But, they denied

the said signatures and contended that they are forged by impersonation

in collusion with the revenue authorities. They further stated that their

father during his lifetime along with his other brothers leased out their

property i.e. Jawahar Talkies at Armoor to M/s Vijaya Exhibitors,

Hyderabad, under a registered lease deed dt. 31.12.1984 and it is marked

as Ex.A14. Therefore, they requested the Court to send Ex.A14 along

with the above documents to the Handwriting Expert for comparison.

4. In the counter filed by the respondents/defendants, they stated that

the lease deed is of the year 1984 and the statements were recorded in the

year 1998 i.e. after a gap of 14 years and signatures differ from time to

time, as such, there is no necessity to send the documents to an Expert.

They further stated that Mohammad Abdulla Bin Ali was highly educated

and practicing Advocate and he knows the statements recorded under

Exs.B14 to B17 by the then Tahsildar according to Rule 6 of Andhra

Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Rules 1989 in the

presence of the witnesses and he lived up to 2004, but he did not raise

any objection regarding the said documents and those statements were 3 PSS,J CRP No.1368 of 2022

recorded by the authority in the open Court. As such, the petition is to be

dismissed.

5. The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides, allowed

the application holding that even Court can compare the signatures under

Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, but for better appreciation of the

facts, it is proper to send the documents to the Handwriting Expert.

Against the said orders, this Civil Revision Petition is filed by the

respondents/defendants. They mainly contended that Ex.A14 is of the

year 1984 and whereas the documents sought to be sent along with it are

of the year 1998 and there is a gap of 14 years and signatures differ from

time to time and the same is raised before the trial Court, but it did not

consider the same. As such, prayed to set aside the trial Court's order.

6. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/defendants is

relied upon the citation of this Court in the case of Bande Siva Shankara

Srinivas Prasad Vs. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu1 in which reference

was made on the aspect whether disputed handwriting/signature can be

sent to Handwriting Expert when there is long gap between admitted

signature and dispute signature. The Court held as follows:

"The gist of the expert's opinion, emerging from the above Report, is to the effect that it is not always necessary to

2015 SCC Online Hyd 467 4 PSS,J CRP No.1368 of 2022

have contemporaneous handwritings/signatures for comparison. However, as a general rule, it would be desirable to undertake comparison of admitted handwritings/signatures with disputed handwritings/signatures which fall within the range of 2 or 3 years from each other."

7. Relying upon the same citation, the learned Counsel for

respondents/plaintiffs argued that even if there is long gap, the documents

can be referred to Handwriting Expert and it is for them to give an

opinion whether the signatures sent by them can be compared or not, or

whether they admit for comparison or not.

8. Admittedly, the plaintiffs in the suit intended to send the document

of 1984 for comparing signature of their father with the signature of their

father in the documents pertaining to the year 1998. The Expert can

compare the documents with contemporaneous handwritings / signatures.

In the above judgment it was stated that the documents can be compared

which fall within the range of 2 or 3 years from each other. As the lease

deed pertains to the year 1984, they could have filed document for

comparison which falls within range of 2 or 3 years, but they failed to do

so. Moreover, the defendants in the suit clearly stated that the father of

plaintiffs who signed on Ex.A14 also signed on exhibit "B" series in the 5 PSS,J CRP No.1368 of 2022

year 1998. He was a practicing advocate and he has not disputed the

same till his death in the year 2004.

9. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/defendants

further argued that comparison of signature on vakalath and written

statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured

standard as according to the plaintiff even by the date of filing of the

vakalat, the defendant is clear in his mind about his stand in regard to the

denial of his signatures on vakalat and written statement.

10. The suit is filed for declaration and they intend to send material

documents for comparison and it is for the Expert to give the opinion

after comparison of signatures whether they are fit for comparison or not.

The plaintiffs are disputing the signatures on the sale deeds. Therefore, I

do not find any infirmity in the order of the trial Court. Accordingly, the

C.R.P. is dismissed by confirming the order of the trial Court.

11. In the result, the C.R.P. is dismissed by confirming the order of the

trial Court. No costs.

12. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

______________________ SMT. P. SREE SUDHA, J

DATE:02.08.2022 BDR