Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 920
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.
Manduva Hanumantha Rao - Petitioner
Versus
Manduva Srinivasa Rao and Others - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No: 2973 of 2024
Decided on : 12-03-2025
For the Petitioner: N SASIKALA
For the Respondent: MADHAVA RAO NALLURI
Documents executed within a short time frame can be deemed contemporaneous, allowing for expert opinions to be sought in legal proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Section 39 - Civil Procedure Code - Order 8 Rule 1(A)(3) - Suit for partition - Dismissal of application to send unregistered Will for expert opinion on grounds of non-contemporaneity - Court found that documents were contemporaneous and the dismissal was erroneous - The trial Court's decision was set aside, allowing the application for expert opinion. (Paras 4, 10, 12, 14)
(B) Expert Opinion - The court emphasized that the timing of documents should not preclude the possibility of expert examination, and the discretion lies with the court to allow such applications based on the facts of each case. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a suit for partition against the respondents, claiming that a Will executed by their father was forged. The trial court dismissed the application to send the Will for expert opinion, citing lack of contemporaneity with a registered partition deed.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the documents in question were contemporaneous and that the trial court erred in dismissing the application.
Issues: The main issues were whether the documents were contemporaneous and if the trial court's dismissal of the application for expert opinion was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that documents executed within a short time frame can be considered contemporaneous, and the trial court should exercise discretion in allowing expert opinions based on the circumstances of the case.
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed.
ORDER :
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.374 of 2014 on the file of the Family-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, filed suit for partition against the respondents/defendants. The petitioner/plaintiff and the 1st respondent/ 1st defendant are the sons of Manduva Seshaiah, born in wedlock with Venkata Subbamma.
2. The said suit was defended by the 1st respondent-1st defendant on the ground that there is already a partition has taken place, vide registered partition deed vide document No.1076/1997 dated 26.03.1997 and also has taken another stand that the father of the petitioner has executed a Will dated 15.10.1998 in favour of the 1st respondent/defendant.
3. In the said suit, the petitioner-plaintiff filed I.A.No.1542 of 2024 under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, to send the unregistered Will Ex.B5 which is said to have been executed by M.Seshaiah for expert opinion to compare the signatures of M.Seshaiah with the admitted signatures in the registered partition deed dated 26.03.1997, to disprove the said Will as fabricated.
4. The said I.A.No.1542 of 2024 was dismissed vide order dated 29.10.2024 on the ground that Ex.B1 is not contemporaneous document with that of Ex.B5 and, in the absence of any such contemporaneous document, sending the document to expert is nothing but futile exercise and, accordingly, I.A.No.1542 of 2024 filed under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, was dismissed.
5. Assailing the said order dated 29.10.2024, the present C.R.P.No.2973 of 2024 is filed on the ground that the observation of the learned trial Court Judge is contrary to law and Ex.B.1 is dated 26.03.1997 and Ex.B.5-Will is dated 15.10.1998 and both are contemporaneous documents and the dismissing of application in I.A.No.1542 of 2024 filed to send for the expert opinion is erroneous.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the erstwhile common High Court in the case titled as Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad Vs. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and others, [ AIR 2016 Hyderabad 118 Full Bench ] and also the judgment in the case of M/s. Janachaitanya Housing Ltd., Ameerpet Vs. M/s. Divya Financiers, [ AIR 2008 A.P. 163 ] for the proposition that what is the meaning of contemporaneous and what is the measure of contemporaneity and contended that the gap between two documents is very less and the second judgment relied for the proposition that the delay cannot be a ground to reject the application to send for expert opinion, hence prayed to set aside the order and consequently prayed to direct the trial Court to send the document for expert opinion for doing substantial justice.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-1st defendant in the suit has filed memo dated 12.12.2024 and filed Ex.B.1-registered partition deed and the deposition of P.W.1, i.e., the petitioner-plaintiff.
8. For facility, Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, is extracted hereunder:
" Section 39 in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
39. Opinions of experts.
(1)When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or any other field, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or any other field, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts and such persons are called experts."
9. The case of the petitioner herein is that the 1st respondent-1st defendant filed I.A.No.1184 of 2024 to receive the document Ex.B.5-Will at a belated stage and the same was allowed by the Court and it is the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that his father has never executed any Will and the same was forged by the 1st respondent-1st defendant in the suit and in order to disprove the signature on the Ex.B5-Will, it is necessary to file the present application to send f
