Gade Rajender Reddy vs Banala Baswaiah
2024 Latest Caselaw 909 Tel

Telangana High Court

Gade Rajender Reddy 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.

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:-

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.

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

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

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.

2008(3) ALT 409 (DB)

2016 (2) ALT 248 FB

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.