IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2560 of 2024

16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 Between:

M. Pranithi …Petitioner/respondent/plaintiff and Veljala @ M. Venkata Narsamma died per LRs. and 4 others …Respondents/petitioners/defendants

ORDER:

Heard Sri J. Rama Mohana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Chaithanya, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the revision petitioner/respondent/plaintiff aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short ‘the Trial Court’) in I.A.No.286 of 2024 in O.S.No.160 of 2016 dated 05.08.2024, wherein, the said petition filed under Section 33 of Indian Stamp Act to refer the original Agreement document dated 26.12.2013 (Oppandapatram executed by Ramachandraiah) and original Notarized partition document (Bhagaparishkara patram) dated 07.11.2014 (executed among Manemma and Venkata Narsamma) for calculating stamp duty and penalty, has been allowed.

3. The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the main suit vide O.S.No.160 of 2016 seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property by the respondents herein with respect to property consisting of house bearing No.2-1-25/3/A consisting of 5 rooms in an extent of 120 Sq.Yds., and House bearing No.2-1-25/3/A1 to 4 consisting of 5 rooms in an extent of 120 Sq.Yds., both situated at Kommugeri, Mahaboobnagar Town, Mahaboobnagar District. In said suit, the matter is at the stage of recording of evidence of DW2, i.e., the chief affidavit is filed and the same is to be affirmed on oath. At that stage, the defendant Nos.2 to 5 i.e. respondent Nos.2 to 5 have filed the petition under Section 33 of Stamp Act to examine original Agreement document dated 26.12.2013 and the original Notarized document dated 07.11.2014 for calculating stamp duty and penalty, which respondent Nos.2 to 5 are ready to pay. At the time of filing the written statement, the respondents have filed Oppandapatram dated 26.12.2013 and original Bhagaparishkara Patram dated 07.11.2014. Said documents were not marked on account of objection raised by the petitioner’s counsel. The objections raised were absence of signature of mother of the deponent Venkata Narsamma. Venkata Narsimlu and others have signed a document on Oppandapatram as witnesses. The executant died and the document is to be confronted to DW2, Venkata Narsimlu. Said document was executed on a Rs.100/- Non- Judicial stamp paper and therefore, it is necessary to pay the required stamp duty. For deciding the same, the petition is filed.

4. The revision petitioner herein i.e. plaintiff opposed the petition on three grounds. The first ground is that the documents sought to be impounded being created documents. The second ground is the suspicious circumstances surrounding the documents and the third ground is incompleteness of the documents. It is the case of the petitioner that in the Agreement dated 24.12.2013, the handwriting on the first page is different compared to the handwriting on the second page. Further, signature of Ramachandraiah on the first page and the second page are forged. The evidence of DW1 is that the Agreement was executed on 24.12.2013, but the Agreement itself contains the date as 26.12.2013 in the column of notary signature. There is a correction in the date from 16.12.2013 to 26.12.2013. The person, M. Venkata Narasamma has not put her signature on all the pages of the document. All these circumstances go to show that the document dated 26.12.2013 is a forged document. Also, the petitioner had given a police complaint against M. Venkata Narsamma and the attesting witnesses by lodging FIR in Crime No.184 of 2017. Therefore, the respondents have not made any effort to exhibit the document when they marked Exs.B14 to B65.