Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 300 (AP)

Ravaluru Venkata Subbamma v. Ravaluru Somasekhar

2009-04-23

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2009
ORDER: 1. The petitioner filed O.S.No.25 of 2005 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, against the respondent, for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. The respondent filed written statement opposing the claim. He based his claim to the suit property on a Will, dated 26.07.1956, executed by his grandfather, by name Subbaiah. The trial of the suit commenced and the Will was marked as Ex.B.1. After the evidence was closed, the petitioner filed I.A.No.191 of 2007 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short 'the Act'), read with Order 26 Rule 10-A of C.P.C. The application was opposed by the respondent, mostly on the grounds of delay. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through its order, dated 14.11.2008. Hence, this C.R.P. 2. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri G.Venu Gopal Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The claim made by the petitioner, for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction, was opposed by the respondent, on the strength of the Will, dated 26.07.1956, which was marked as Ex.B.1. It is ultimately for the respondent to prove the Will, to the satisfaction of the trail Court. 4. The record discloses that Ex.B.1 was written upon a stamp paper. The petitioner entertained a doubt as to whether the stamp paper was of the year 1956, at all, or whether the alleged Will was written on a stamp paper of subsequent period. For this purpose, he wanted Ex.B.1 to be referred to the Government Security Press, Nasik, Maharashtra. It is no doubt true that Ex.B.1 was filed into the Court along with the written statement. However, the petitioner is not supposed to take any steps vis--vis the document, till it was spoken to by a witness. It was only in March, 2007 that the document came to be marked as Ex.B.1, and shortly thereafter, the application was filed. Any attempt made by the petitioner to disprove the alleged Will, would have certainly alerted the respondent to search for excuses. The petitioner was well advised to wait till the cross- examination, vis--vis the document, was completed. It was only in March, 2007 that the document came to be marked as Ex.B.1, and shortly thereafter, the application was filed. Any attempt made by the petitioner to disprove the alleged Will, would have certainly alerted the respondent to search for excuses. The petitioner was well advised to wait till the cross- examination, vis--vis the document, was completed. In case, he is able to procure any information from the authoritative source that the Will was executed on a stamp paper of a period subsequent to 1956, the petitioner can certainly score a point against the respondent. That ultimately is the gist and object of the very trial. 5. Another observation made by the trial Court is that, the Court can itself undertake comparison of the disputed signatures in exercise of its power under Section 73 of the Act. What is in dispute in the present context is not the signature upon the Will, it is the age of the stamp paper on which Ex.B.1 was written. It is only the security press that can certify the period of printing of the stamp papers. Viewed from any angle, the order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law. 6. The C.R.P. is accordingly allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A.191 of 2007 is allowed and the trial Court shall send the original of Ex.B.1 to the Government Security Press, Nasik, to certify the date or period at which the stamp paper, on which Ex.B.1 was written, was printed. The trial Court shall also impress upon the urgency involved. The petitioner shall incur the necessary expenditure. The trial of the suit shall be taken up, soon after the report is received from the Press. There shall be no order as to costs.