Back
2016 Supreme(AP) 557
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J.
Bhavanam Siva Reddy & Others – Appellants
Versus
Bhavanam Hanumantha Reddy & Another – Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 1590 of 2016
Decided On : 30-12-2016
For the Petitioner: P. Sridhar Reddy.
For the Respondent: Marella Radha.
Important Point—Court has discretion to seek or not to seek expert opinion depending upon on individual facts and circumstances.
Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 45 and 73—Expert opinion—Court though got power to compare under Section 73 of Evidence Act, a handwriting that equally apply to thumb impression from its wording, Court is not an expert—Courts when not experts cannot take ordeal for comparing handwriting or signatures or thumb impressions without any expert opinion to its aid.
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 45 and 73—Expert opinion—For handwriting expert’s opinion there is no rule of requirement of corroboration nor any rule of same can be acted solely as basis but to decide with reference to it for its circumstances and other evidence—Opinion of handwriting expert mainly to be supported by reasons contemplated under Section 51 of Evidence Act—Once there is other reliable evidence of attestor or other direct witness to transaction covered by document, handwriting or signature if in dispute to prove, if it is credible, handwriting expert’s opinion running contra to it cannot be a basis to disbelieve other cogent evidence—Each case depends upon own facts and from nature of evidence available on record for appreciation by Court of prudence and commonsense with experience of men and matters.
Result—Revision Petition allowed.
1. The defendant Nos. 3, 8 & 9 by names Bhavanam Siva Reddy S/o. Venkata Reddy, Bhavanam Venkata Reddy and Bhavanam Mallikarjuna Reddy sons of Late Sowrilu Reddy, no other than legal representatives of late 2nd defendant out of original 3 defendants including 1st defendant W/o. late Sambi Reddy, 2nd defendant Sowrilu Reddy and 3rd defendant Siva Reddy are the brothers of Sambi Reddy, husband of defendant No. 1, of O.S. No. 583 of 2006 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, went unsuccessful in their application in I.A. No. 1642 of 2015 maintained against the plaintiff-Bhavanam Hanumantha Reddy and 1st defendant-Bhavanam Ramakotamma W/o. Late Sambi Reddy as 2 respondents, by the impugned dismissal order dated 18.02.2016, maintained the revision.
2. The application filed was under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.A8 (so called unregistered will dated 07.05.1990), Ex.A9 (so called unregistered adoption deed of even date 07.05.1990) and Ex.B21-so called registered will dated 15.09.1989 to the Handwriting & Finger Prints expert to compare with the so called admitted thumb marks of the deceased Bhavanam Sambi Reddy contained in Exs.X1 and X2 and to submit report.
3. Coming to factual background in nutshell, the revision 1st respondent-plaintiff to the revision petition by name Bhavanam Hanumantha Reddy minor represented by his father Karumuru Veera Reddy filed O.S. No. 61 of 1991 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Chirala for partition and separate possession of plaint schedule items 1 to 13 and also for recovery of possession of plaint schedule items 14 & 15. After establishment of Senior Civil Judge, Parchur, the said suit was transferred and renumbered as O.S. No. 43 of 1995. In the said suit, on behalf of plaintiff PWs.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.A1 to A14 were marked and on behalf of defendants, DWs.1 to 15 were examined and Exs.B1 to B24 were marked, besides Exs.X1 to X3. From said evidence in support of the respective pleadings and on contest, the suit was preliminarily decreed on 10.07.1998 for partition and separate possession of items 1 to 13 and also for recovery of items 14 & 15 of suit schedule properties.
4. Against said decree and judgment, defendant Nos. 2 & 3 i.e., Bhavanam Sowrilu Reddy and Siva Reddy filed A.S. No. 1331 of 1998. The appellants also maintained CMA No. 2329 of 1998 against Bhavanam Rama Kotamma and B. Hanumantha Reddy minor represented by his father Karumuru Veera Reddy, which is against the order in O.P. No. 2 of 1995 (original No. 7 of 1991) dated 10.07.1998 of the Senior Civil Judge, Parchur, under Section 384 of Indian Succession Act for succession certificate sought for was ended in dismissal. Said Hanumantha Reddy minor represented by his father Karumuru Veera Reddy was claiming as legatee and adopted son of Rama Kotamma and her husband late Sambi Reddy under Exs.A8 and A9.
5. A.S. No. 1331 of 1998 and C.M.A. No. 2329 of 1998 were while pending before the High Court for common disposal, there were 3 applications filed in A.S.M.P. Nos. 1287 and 2683 of 2005 and CMP No. 8079 of 2004, for additional evidence viz., to receive and exhibit certified copy of sale deed dated 29.12.2004 document No. 2890 of 2004 of Sub Registrar, Chebrolu, to receive and exhibit the plaint in O.S. No. 6 of 2001 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, and to receive the certified copies of promissory notes dated 24.11.1986, 01.11.1987, 10.06.1988, 14.07.1988 and 05.11.1988 and written statement of late Sambi Reddy in O.S. No. 422 of 1990 and deposition of 2nd defendant in E.A. No. 276 of 2002 in E.P. No. 265 of 2000 in O.S. No. 397 of 1990 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. All the matters covered by the common judgment by another Bench of this Court dated 13.08.2005, whereunder it was observed that application was moved for comparison of disputed thumb impression with admitted thumb impressions during fagend of trial and the dismissal was made a grou
