Back
D. Ramesh, J
KANDIKATTU RAMANAMMA – Appellant
Versus
BOMMA MOHAN RAO – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1728 OF 2019
The presumption of genuineness for documents over thirty years old under Section 90 of the Evidence Act does not apply to copies, and the original must be produced to satisfy the court or be sent for expert forensic opinion when forgery is alleged.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Act - Presumption as to old documents - Section 90 - The presumption of genuineness for documents thirty years old is not automatic; it requires the document to be produced from proper custody and is subject to the court's discretion. (Para 13)
(B) Secondary Evidence - Presumption under Section 90 - The statutory presumption of due execution under Section 90 does not apply to a copy or certified copy of a document, even if it is over thirty years old; the production of the original is necessary to justify such presumption. (Para 13)
(C) Civil Procedure - Production of Documents - Forgery Allegations - Where the execution of a关键 document (receipt) is disputed as forged, the production of the original is necessary for expert forensic opinion to determine genuineness. (Para 14)
Issues: Whether the lower court was justified in dismissing the application to produce an original document for expert opinion based on the age of the document and the stage of the trial.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of the suit and the application for forensic examination of a disputed receipt. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. allegations of fraud and forgery regarding a compromise decree and payment receipt. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. defense arguments regarding time-barring of the decree and prematurity of the application. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. legal interpretation of section 90 evidence act regarding the production of original vs copies. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. necessity of original document for expert opinion to resolve disputes over execution. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
ORDER:
1. Present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs aggrieved by the decree and order dated 08.04.2019 in I.A.No.803 of 2018 in O.S.No.509 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore.
2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs, filed suit in O.S.No.509 of 2016 for declaration of the title in O.S.No.628 of 1980 and they have also filed I.A.No.803 of 2018 in O.S.No.509 of 2016 under section 151 read with Order 16 Rule 15 of CPC to direct the 2nd respondent to cause production of Ex.B5 marked in I.A.No.170 of 2012 i.e. alleged original receipt dated 12.06.1985, for the purpose of sending the same to Hand Writing and Thumb Impression Exert, Government Forensic Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad for opinion. However, the court below dismissed the said I.A. on the following observation:-
“As rightly contended by the counsel for the respondent that the decree was passed about 33 years ago, no contemporary signatures, the document is of the year 1985. The petitioner not mentioned about the availability of signatures pertains to the relevant period. The petitioner kept quite all these years without questioning the genuinity of the document. If she really did not receive the amount as per the decree and not issue the receipt, they actually continued the suit proceedings, but they kept quite all these years, it creates doubt on the case of the petitioner. There are no reasonable grounds to allow the petition. The petitioners not mentioned for which purpose they want to send the document to Hand Writing and Thumb Impression Exprt. The petition is very vague. There are no grounds to allow the petition. In the result, the petition is dismissed.”
3. Originally the suit was filed in the year 2011 and the same was numbered as O.S.No.554 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore and said suit is filed with the following prayer:
a) “declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and direct the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff, if they failed to do so, the same may be done through process of court;
b) granting mandatory injunction ordering removal of an unauthorised constructions made by the defendants over the plaint schedule property;”
4. Subsequently, the same was renumbered as O.S.No.509 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, wherein the petitioners have filed the present I.A.No.803 of 2018, seeking to direct the 2nd respondent to cause production of Ex.B5 marked in I.A.No.170 of 2012 i.e., alleged original receipt, dated 12.06.1985.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the husband of the 1st petitioner filed O.S.No.628 of 1980 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore for recovery of possession of the suit schedule site from the 1st defendant. During pendency of the said suit, husband of the 1st petitioner died and the petitioners came on record as legal representatives. However, by playing fraud, the 1st respondent obtained compromise decree on 20.12.1984.
6. As per the conditions of the said compromise decree, the 1st respondent/defendant has to pay Rs.15,000/- to the petitioners within six months from 20.12.1984, failing which said compromise decree stands cancelled. The 1st respondent/defendant sold away the said property illegally to the 2nd respo
