Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1776 (TS)

Saraji Manjula v. Vulli Yadavva W/o Late Mallaiah

2025-12-10

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order in IA.No.96 of 2023 in IA.No.480 of 2022 in OS.No.565 of 2022, dated 17.03.2023 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Husband, where under the application filed by the sole respondent under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act came to be allowed. 2. Petitioner is the respondent-plaintiff and the respondent is the petitioner-defendant in IA.No.96 of 2023. 3.1. Respondent-petitioner has filed IA.No.96 of 2023 in IA.No.480 of 2022 in OS.No.565 of 2022 to send the alleged Agreement of Sale, dated 25.06.2022 with the admitted specimen signatures along with written statement, counter, and vakalath to the Handwriting Expert. 3.2. It is stated in the affidavit that the alleged Agreement of Sale, dated 25.06.2022 is not executed by her (respondent herein) at any point of time in favour of the respondent therein (petitioner herein). 4. Petitioner-respondent has filed her counter in the above said I.A. and contended that the sole evidence of Handwriting Expert is not normally sufficient and the comparison of signatures in the disputed document is to be sent at the commencement of the trial. The deposition of the witnesses is the best evidence than the Expert opinion and the signatures of the person may vary from time to time due to age and health factors, Expert opinion is not conclusive evidence. Petitioner (respondent herein) cleverly sketched to escape from the execution of registered sale deed and it clearly reveals that she may change her writing pattern only to misguide the Court by putting wrong signatures on vakalath, written statement only to create an FSL report in her favour and prayed to dismiss the application. 5. The learned trial Court after going through the material on record has allowed IA.No.96 of 2023 holding that no prejudice will be caused to the respondent (petitioner herein) and it is a fit case to allow the application as prayed for, which is impugned in the CRP. 6.1. 5. The learned trial Court after going through the material on record has allowed IA.No.96 of 2023 holding that no prejudice will be caused to the respondent (petitioner herein) and it is a fit case to allow the application as prayed for, which is impugned in the CRP. 6.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent submits that the learned trial Court has committed material irregularity in allowing the application filed by the respondent-petitioner under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and the Court below failed to see that suit is filed for specific performance of contract and that the respondent-petitioner offered to sell the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.11 Lakhs, on the same day petitioner-respondent has paid the total sale consideration and the respondent-petitioner has delivered the possession. 6.2. The learned trial Court failed to see that IA.No.96 of 2023 came to be filed by the respondent-petitioner after receiving notice in the suit alleging that Agreement of Sale, dated 25.06.2022 is not executed by her at any point of time. The learned trial Court failed to answer the contentions raised by the petitioner-respondent. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) J.L. Babu Vs. Gowri Shankar and another, 2009 (5) ALT 415 (S.B.), (2) Lakkapamula Rani Vs. Manda Batasari, CRP No. 1361 of 2021 dated 23.03.2022 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi (3) Byalla Devadas Vs. Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara Rao , http://indiankanoon.org/doc/91787415 , (4) P. Padmanabhaiah Vs. G. Srinivasa Rao , (2017) 1 ALT 710 . 7.1. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner contended that the Agreement of Sale, dated 25.06.2022 is a fabricated document and that the petitioner-respondent is none other than the daughter-in-law of the respondent-petitioner and her counsel is V.Kumaraswamy who is the son of the respondent-petitioner. As the respondent-petitioner is a senior citizen contesting the suit for specific performance filed by her daughter-in-law (petitioner herein) and if there is a delay in collecting the specimen signatures in open Court, if she dies, the very purpose of applying for Expert comparison will be defeated. 7.2. As the respondent-petitioner is a senior citizen contesting the suit for specific performance filed by her daughter-in-law (petitioner herein) and if there is a delay in collecting the specimen signatures in open Court, if she dies, the very purpose of applying for Expert comparison will be defeated. 7.2. Counsel contended that if the Court comes to a conclusion that the impugned order requires interference of the High Court then in alternate the learned trial Court may be directed to obtain the specimen signature of the respondent-petitioner in open Court and preserve the same in the record for comparison somewhere in the remote future. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Kessarbai Vs. Jethabhai Jivan , AIR 1928 Privy Council 277 , (2) Ram Narain Vs. State of U.P. , AIR 1973 SC 2200 , (3) Union of India and Another Vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal , AIR 1992 SC 96 , (4) Ajit Savant Majagavi Vs. State of Karnataka , AIR 1997 SC 3255 , (5) Thiruvengada Pillai Vs. Navaneethammal and Anr. AIR 2008 SC 1541 , (6) Rajendra Prasad Gupta Vs. Prakash Chandra Mishra and Ors . AIR 2011 SC 1137 , (7) Kaparowthu Krishna Rao Vs. Karlapudi Satya Krishna Vara Prasada Rao , 1996 (1) ALD 1151 , (8) Mohammed Sultan Vs. Nawazunnisa , 1997 (3) ALD 631 . 8. Learned counsel on record have filed their written arguments in support of their contentions. 9. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material. 10. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the learned trial Court was justified in allowing the application filed by the respondent-petitioner under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act in IA.No.96 of 2023 prior to commencement of the trial. 11. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner: (See K. Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985). 12.1. Kumaresan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985). 12.1. Petitioner who is the respondent in the I.A. and plaintiff in the suit i.e., OS.No.565 of 2022 stated in the plaint that the respondent-petitioner-defendant is the owner of land admeasuring Acs.02-28 guntas in Survey No.266A1 and an extent of Ac.0-02 guntas in Survey No.267E1, total to an extent of Acs.02-30 guntas situated at Regonda Revenue Village of Akkannapet Mandal of Siddipet District and she offered to sell the said property for a total sale consideration of Rs.11 Lakhs. An Agreement of Sale is executed on 25.06.2022 and then the plaintiff has paid the entire consideration and the defendant has delivered the possession. 12.2. The prayer made in the suit is to direct the defendant (respondent herein) to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff (petitioner herein) in pursuance of the Agreement of Sale, dated 25.06.2022. 13. Respondent-petitioner-defendant filed her written statement, denied the execution of Agreement of Sale, dated 25.06.2022. 14. It is apt to refer the observations made by the trial Court while allowing the application which reads as under: “Therefore, by sending the agreement of sale to the Hand Writing Expert along with the admitted and specimen signatures of defendant taken in the open court for comparison with the disputed signatures no prejudice will be caused to the respondent/plaintiff. Hence, it is fit case to allow this application as prayed by the petitioner/defendant.” 15.1. In J.L. Babu (supra) the High Court observed that “Allowing of application for sending disputed documents for Expert’s opinion before commencement of trial is not legal”. 15.2. In Lakkapamula Rani (supra) the High Court observed that “Sending all the signatures obtained in the open Court along with suit summons, vakalath, written statements for comparison to the Expert is impermissible”. Similar view is taken in Byalla Devadas (supra). 15.3. In P. Padmanabhaiah (supra) the High Court held that “There is no point in sending to an Expert the documents of doubtful nature and character and add one more piece of unreliable evidence and burden the record by wasting the time and money of the parties.” 16. Coming to the case on hand, evidence in the suit is not yet commenced and written statement is filed by the respondent- petitioner. Issues have to be framed, trial has to be commenced. Coming to the case on hand, evidence in the suit is not yet commenced and written statement is filed by the respondent- petitioner. Issues have to be framed, trial has to be commenced. It is the petitioner-respondent-plaintiff who has to prove the execution of the Agreement of Sale, dated 25.06.2022 by leading evidence. 17.1. In Kessarbai (supra) the Privy Council held that “Mere comparison with admitted signatures especially without the aid in evidence of microscopic enlargements or any Expert advice is by no means of convincing”. 17.2. In Ram Narain (supra) the Supreme Court held that “The opinion of a Handwriting Expert given in evidence is no less fallible than any other Expert opinion. But such opinion is worthy of acceptance if there is internal or external evidence relating to the writing in question supporting the Expert's view.” 17.3. In Deoki Nandan Agarwal (supra) the Supreme Court held that “It is not the duty of the Court either to enlarge the scope of the legislation or the intention of the legislature when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous.” 17.4. In Ajit Savant Majagavi (supra) the Supreme Court held that “The Court should not normally take step to take upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signatures with that of the admitted signatures”. 17.5. In Thiruvengada Pillai (supra) the Supreme Court held that “The Court should hesitate to venture a decision based on its own comparison of the disputed and admitted finger impressions”. 17.6. In Rajendra Prasad Gupta (supra) the Supreme Court held that “Rules of procedures are handmaids of justice. That the provision has to be interpreted to mean that every procedure is permitted to the Court for doing justice unless expressly prohibited and not that every procedure is prohibited unless expressly permitted.” 17.7. In Kaparowthu Krishna Rao (supra) the High Court held that “Comparison by Court of the disputed and admitted signatures a hazardous task”. 17.8. In Mohammed Sultan (supra) the High Court held that “Document not got examined by Handwriting Expert, Court decreed the suit on the basis of comparison of the signature on the receipt with the admitted signature of the defendant and finding that both were written by the defendant held invalid”. 18. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (supra) is dealt with the power of the legislation and Rajendra Prasad Gupta (supra) is dealt with the procedures are of handmaid. 19. 18. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (supra) is dealt with the power of the legislation and Rajendra Prasad Gupta (supra) is dealt with the procedures are of handmaid. 19. The other decisions cited by the respondent’s counsel stated supra at Para Nos. 17.1, 17.2, 17.4, 17.5, 17.7, 17.8 are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the ratio of those cases would not apply in the present case on hand in view of the fact that the facts in the above decisions are completely different with the case on hand. 20. As stated supra, the evidence in the suit vide OS.No.565 of 2022 is not yet commenced and the learned trial Court has not discussed the contentions raised by the parties in detail and passed cryptic order stated supra at Para No.14. 21. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner contended that the respondent-petitioner is a senior citizen, if there is a delay in collecting her specimen signatures in open Court and if she dies, the purpose of applying for Expert opinion will be defeated. IA.No.96 of 2023 came to be filed on 19.01.2023 and the age of the respondent-petitioner-defendant is shown as 62 years. The learned trial Court is hereby directed to obtain the specimen signatures of the respondent in open Court and preserve them in the record for comparison. Petitioner-respondent-plaintiff is also given liberty to furnish the signatures of the respondent-petitioner-defendant if available before the learned Trial Court as the parties belong to one family. The application filed by the respondent-petitioner is a premature one and the learned trial Court has passed a perverse order. Liberty is given to the respondent-petitioner to make another application at appropriate stage if required. 22. In view of the reasons above, the order passed by the learned trial Court is perverse and requires interference of this Court. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 23. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Order passed by the learned trial Court in IA.No.96 of 2023 in IA.No.480 of 2022 in OS.No.565 of 2022, dated 17.03.2023 is set aside. Consequently, the petition is dismissed with observations in the order. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim Orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.