Sec.45 of Evidence Act & Or.26, rule 10 -A C.P.C - petition to send the Stamp papers to the Nasik Maharashtra for knowing the date of issue - as the document was written with anti date - Trial court dismissed the same on the ground of delay and on the ground that the court can compare the signore - Their Lordships held that the delay does not arise , as filing of petition was arose only after completion of evidence - as the dispute is not about the signature comparison by court does not arise and as such set aside the lower court order and allowed the Revision petition = Ravaluru Venkata Subbamma Ravaluru Somasekhar = 2009 ( April. Part ) http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=6529
Sec.45 of Evidence Act & Or.26, rule 10 -A C.P.C - petition to send the Stamp papers to the Nasik Maharashtra for knowing the date of issue - as the document was written with anti date - Trial court dismissed the same on the ground of delay and on the ground that the court can compare the signore - Their Lordships held that the delay does not arise , as filing of petition was arose only after completion of evidence - as the dispute is not about the signature comparison by court does not arise and as such set aside the lower court order and allowed the Revision petition =
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. =
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.
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.
2009 ( April. Part ) http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=6529
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.720 of 2009
23-04-2009
Ravaluru Venkata Subbamma
Ravaluru Somasekhar
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Veera Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent: Sri G.Venu Gopal Reddy
:ORDER:
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.
Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and
Sri G.Venu Gopal Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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. =
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.
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.
2009 ( April. Part ) http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=6529
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.720 of 2009
23-04-2009
Ravaluru Venkata Subbamma
Ravaluru Somasekhar
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Veera Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent: Sri G.Venu Gopal Reddy
:ORDER:
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.
Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and
Sri G.Venu Gopal Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
Comments
Post a Comment