The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER a ORDER: ,THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA ztv4t Heard liri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though notice is served on the respondent, none appeared on behalf of the rt:spondent. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.03.2024 passed in I.A. No.3t7 of 2023 in o.s. No.36 of 2019 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool, wherein, the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, LgT2 (for short, the ActJ for sending the signature of the petitioner/defendant on suit agreement of sale and koulu bhoomi oppandamu along with the admitted signatures to a handwriting expert for analysis, has been dismissed. 3- The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present revision petition are that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S. No. 36 of 2}lg for specilic performance of agreement of sale date d Og.OT.2OlT for a direction to tL.e revision petitioner/defendant to execute a registered sale deed with respect to suit schedule propert5r constituting of land admeasuring Ac 1-o0 guntas in Survey No. 84/A, agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1-oo guntas in survey No. lg4lAA, total land admeasuring Ac.2-oo guntas, situated at pulijala village and gram panchayat, Achanrpet Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, Telangana state. 1 t 2 RY,J ctp_1945_2024 0 In the said suit, the revision petitioner/defendant denied the execution of Koulu bhoomi oppandamu dated 2s.03.201 2, agreement of sare dated o9.o7.2o17 and receipt dated og.or.2orz. There is a dispute about the very signature on the documents relied upon by the respondent/plaintiff who is seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated o9'o7'2o17' Since there is a dispute, the revision petitioner against whom relief sought has filed the I.A. under the revision petition to send the disputed signatures along with his admitted signatures for comparison by a handwriting expert and the said [.A. was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is preferred. 4' In the grounds of the revision, the revision petitioner pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff is the ex-husband of his sister, obtained divorce in the year 2074 and created illegal claim over the suit schedule propert5r. The revision petitioner is a Government doctor and taking ment dated 25.03.2012 and agreement of sale dated Og.o7.2OL7 are created and on the basis of the said forged documents, the suit was filed for specilic performance. It is submitted that the main dispute is whether the lease agreement i.e., Koulu bhoomi oppandamu dated 2s.o3.2or2 and agreement of sale dated o9.o7.2oL7 are valid and therefore, it is proper to refer the documents to the expert. The burden of proof to prove forgery of the signatures on the agreement of sale, Koulu bhoomi oppandamu and receipts is on the revision petitioner and therefore, the trial Court ought \l\ 3 RY,J crp-1945_2024 to have allovred the petition i.e., t.A. No. 3LT of 2023 but has erroneously dismissed th.e same

5. Durinl; the arguments, learned counsel for the revision petitironer submitted ttrat the suit in O.S. No. 36 of 2Ol9 for specific performance is filed based r>n forged and fabricated documents. Therefore, there is a need to prove that the signatures on the agreement of sale, receipts and the Koulu bhoomi oppandamu are not made by the revision petitioner. In order to prove the forgery and to bringforth the truth before the Court, the petition i.e., I.A. No. 3I7 of 2023 was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidr:nce Act, L872, but the relief has been denied on the mistaken pt'emises that the burden of proof always lies on the plaintiff/resprondent only when the plaintiff/respondent proves his case, the onus of proof shifts to the shoulders of the defendant/revision petitioner. lt is held that prior to commencement of trial, instead of plaintiff/reSp,6n6.rrt, the defendant/revision petitioner filed the instant petition i.e., t.A. No. 3 17 of 2023 and therefore, the trial Court held that the petition i e., I.A. No. 3LT of 2023 is devoid of merits

6. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent and as such, it is de,:med no arguments on behalf of the respondent.

7. The fe,ctual situation of the present case shows that the respondent/6rlaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 36 of 2OL9 for specific performance against the revision petitioner herein/defendant on the basis. of thre: main documents i.e., Koulu bhoomi oppandamu dated \r, \ / 4 RY,J crp_1945_2O24 25'03'2012, agreement of sale dated og.oT.2oLT and receipt dated og.o7.2oL7. only when the genuineness of the signatures is ascertained, the controversy can be resolved. Leading oral evidence will not be of any use until and unless the admitted signatures are compared with the disputed signatures by a handwriting expert. 8' In the facts and circumstances of this particular case when the revision petitioner disputed his signature and came forward to send his own signatures to a handwriting expert, the said relief was denied by the trial court on two grounds. First ground is that the petition i,e., I.A. No. 3L7 of 2023 is filed before commencement of the trial. second ground is that the admitted signature and contemplated signature are not submitted along with the petition i.e., I.A. No. 3 LZ of 2023. 9' Firstlg, there is no time period fixed under Section 45 of the Act for sending the disputed signatures for comparison by a handwriting expert. It is apposite to extract Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, rgz2 which reads as below: "45. Opinion^s of experts. Wlrcn the Court ha.s to form an opinion upon a point of foreign laut, or of science or art, o, ": jg j*rytitg-of hanabAtinj lorlngli i"Wr."saons/ [Iryertea bg Act 5 of 1899, seition 3. For discussjon in council as to whether [finger imOr_e-_ssions]-irrclude [thumb impres,sions,] Oazctte of India, 1898, Pt. VI, y.!4.1, tLe opinions upon thnt point of persons speciallg skilled in such foreign rana, science or art, [oi in questibns as to identity of handturitingl [Inserted by Act rg oy lbrt, sectan a.] [or finger-impressions/ [Inserted bg aci s oy tbse, s."iion 3. For discussron in council as to in tn , [Finger rmpressionsl incrude [thumb rmpressions,] see Gazette of l;dia: lege', pt.ii,-p.24.1 are releuant facts. 'ee Such persons are cailed experts. I \ \ v 1 5 RY,J crp_1945_2024 Illustranions (a)The c.uestions is, uhether the death of A was caused bg poison. The opi,zions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by whichl, is supposed to hque died, are relevant. (b)tlrc question is, uthether A, at the time of doing a certain act, wcts, by reascn of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he utas doing utlnt utas either wrong or contrary to laut. The opinions of experts upon ttrc question whether the sgmptoms exhibited by A commonlg shou.t unsoundness olf mind, and whetler such u;T soundness of mind usuallg renders persons incapable of knouing the nature of ttrc acts whichtteg do, or of krwwirq tlwt wh.at theg do is either urong or contrary to law, are releuant. (c)Tle gaestion is, whettter a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proued or admitted.to lnue been written bg A. The opinions of experls on the question whether tlrc two documents utere wtitten bg the same person or bu different persons, are releuant. 45A. Opinion of Exanniner of Electronic Euidence. [Inserte<t by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2OO8 (10 of 2009), S'ection 52(b).1 When in a proceeding, the court has to form an opinion on ang matter rekating to ang information transmitted or stored in ang computer resource' or anA other electronic or digital form, tlte opinion of the Examinor of Electronic Euidence referred to in Section 79-A of the Information Technology Act 2OOO(21 of 2OO0)is a relevantfact. Explainction - For tlrc purposes of this Section, an Examinor of Electronic Euidence shall be an expert.l" (verbatim reproduced)

10. The abcve provision does not fix any time frame for sending the documents to a handwriting expert and that such petition can be fited at any stage of thLe trial. In fact, sending the disputed signatures even before commencement of trial may facilitate the respondent/plaintiff to come forward with additional evidence to overcome the handwriting expert report in czLse said report is in the favour of the revision l I 6 RY,J crp_1945_2024 petitioner/defendant. No prejudice likely to be caused to the case of the respondent/plaintiff in case the hanclwriting expert is not in favour of the revision petitioner/defendant. In either case, the respondent/plaintiff is not likely to suffer any loss or prejudice. The second reason cited for dismissal of the petition i.e., I.A. No. 317 of 2A23 is that not furnishing admitted signatures and contemporary signatures. The Court could have always directed the revision petitioner to submit his admitted signatures by taking them in open court and upon taking signatures from him, the Court can direct him to produce contemporary signatures for comparison by a handwriting expert. 1 1. In the circumstances stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reasons cited for dismissal of the petition i.e., I.A. No. 317 of 2023 are not valid and sustainable and therefore, the order order dated 22.o3.2024 passcd by the trial court is liable to be set aside.

12. Accordingly, the civil Revision Petition is Allowed. The impugned order dated 22.03.2024 in I.A. No. 3 rr of 2023 in o.s. No. 36 of 2019 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool, is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous { To, SD/.AHSGOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII OFFICER

1.. The Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool. (with recorus if apv) Cr''td-' ' \ \

2. One CO to SRl. M.Damodar Reddy, Advocate IOPUCI 3. Two Ctt Copies / i I t I I t It' HIGH COURI DATED: 1511012025 \ \ ORDER cRP.No.194tiof 2024 HE\ \ 2 B Jr}l 202[ -$/ { C C) \ * CIVIL REVISI.fN PETITION IS ALLOWED J-t<s ^l,lu

Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER a ORDER: ,THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA ztv4t Heard liri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though notice is served on the respondent, none appeared on behalf of the rt:spondent. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.03.2024 passed in I.A. No.3t7 of 2023 in o.s. No.36 of 2019 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool, wherein, the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, LgT2 (for short, the ActJ for sending the signature of the petitioner/defendant on suit agreement of sale and koulu bhoomi oppandamu along with the admitted signatures to a handwriting expert for analysis, has been dismissed. 3- The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present revision petition are that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S. No. 36 of 2}lg for specilic performance of agreement of sale date d Og.OT.2OlT for a direction to tL.e revision petitioner/defendant to execute a registered sale deed with respect to suit schedule propert5r constituting of land admeasuring Ac 1-o0 guntas in Survey No. 84/A, agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1-oo guntas in survey No. lg4lAA, total land admeasuring Ac.2-oo guntas, situated at pulijala village and gram panchayat, Achanrpet Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, Telangana state. 1 t 2 RY,J ctp_1945_2024 0 In the said suit, the revision petitioner/defendant denied the execution of Koulu bhoomi oppandamu dated 2s.03.201 2, agreement of sare dated o9.o7.2o17 and receipt dated og.or.2orz. There is a dispute about the very signature on the documents relied upon by the respondent/plaintiff who is seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated o9'o7'2o17' Since there is a dispute, the revision petitioner against whom relief sought has filed the I.A. under the revision petition to send the disputed signatures along with his admitted signatures for comparison by a handwriting expert and the said [.A. was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is preferred. 4' In the grounds of the revision, the revision petitioner pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff is the ex-husband of his sister, obtained divorce in the year 2074 and created illegal claim over the suit schedule propert5r. The revision petitioner is a Government doctor and taking ment dated 25.03.2012 and agreement of sale dated Og.o7.2OL7 are created and on the basis of the said forged documents, the suit was filed for specilic performance. It is submitted that the main dispute is whether the lease agreement i.e., Koulu bhoomi oppandamu dated 2s.o3.2or2 and agreement of sale dated o9.o7.2oL7 are valid and therefore, it is proper to refer the documents to the expert. The burden of proof to prove forgery of the signatures on the agreement of sale, Koulu bhoomi oppandamu and receipts is on the revision petitioner and therefore, the trial Court ought \l\ 3 RY,J crp-1945_2024 to have allovred the petition i.e., t.A. No. 3LT of 2023 but has erroneously dismissed th.e same

5. Durinl; the arguments, learned counsel for the revision petitironer submitted ttrat the suit in O.S. No. 36 of 2Ol9 for specific performance is filed based r>n forged and fabricated documents. Therefore, there is a need to prove that the signatures on the agreement of sale, receipts and the Koulu bhoomi oppandamu are not made by the revision petitioner. In order to prove the forgery and to bringforth the truth before the Court, the petition i.e., I.A. No. 3I7 of 2023 was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidr:nce Act, L872, but the relief has been denied on the mistaken pt'emises that the burden of proof always lies on the plaintiff/resprondent only when the plaintiff/respondent proves his case, the onus of proof shifts to the shoulders of the defendant/revision petitioner. lt is held that prior to commencement of trial, instead of plaintiff/reSp,6n6.rrt, the defendant/revision petitioner filed the instant petition i.e., t.A. No. 3 17 of 2023 and therefore, the trial Court held that the petition i e., I.A. No. 3LT of 2023 is devoid of merits

6. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent and as such, it is de,:med no arguments on behalf of the respondent.

7. The fe,ctual situation of the present case shows that the respondent/6rlaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 36 of 2OL9 for specific performance against the revision petitioner herein/defendant on the basis. of thre: main documents i.e., Koulu bhoomi oppandamu dated \r, \ / 4 RY,J crp_1945_2O24 25'03'2012, agreement of sale dated og.oT.2oLT and receipt dated og.o7.2oL7. only when the genuineness of the signatures is ascertained, the controversy can be resolved. Leading oral evidence will not be of any use until and unless the admitted signatures are compared with the disputed signatures by a handwriting expert. 8' In the facts and circumstances of this particular case when the revision petitioner disputed his signature and came forward to send his own signatures to a handwriting expert, the said relief was denied by the trial court on two grounds. First ground is that the petition i,e., I.A. No. 3L7 of 2023 is filed before commencement of the trial. second ground is that the admitted signature and contemplated signature are not submitted along with the petition i.e., I.A. No. 3 LZ of 2023. 9' Firstlg, there is no time period fixed under Section 45 of the Act for sending the disputed signatures for comparison by a handwriting expert. It is apposite to extract Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, rgz2 which reads as below: "45. Opinion^s of experts. Wlrcn the Court ha.s to form an opinion upon a point of foreign laut, or of science or art, o, ": jg j*rytitg-of hanabAtinj lorlngli i"Wr."saons/ [Iryertea bg Act 5 of 1899, seition 3. For discussjon in council as to whether [finger imOr_e-_ssions]-irrclude [thumb impres,sions,] Oazctte of India, 1898, Pt. VI, y.!4.1, tLe opinions upon thnt point of persons speciallg skilled in such foreign rana, science or art, [oi in questibns as to identity of handturitingl [Inserted by Act rg oy lbrt, sectan a.] [or finger-impressions/ [Inserted bg aci s oy tbse, s."iion 3. For discussron in council as to in tn , [Finger rmpressionsl incrude [thumb rmpressions,] see Gazette of l;dia: lege', pt.ii,-p.24.1 are releuant facts. 'ee Such persons are cailed experts. I \ \ v 1 5 RY,J crp_1945_2024 Illustranions (a)The c.uestions is, uhether the death of A was caused bg poison. The opi,zions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by whichl, is supposed to hque died, are relevant. (b)tlrc question is, uthether A, at the time of doing a certain act, wcts, by reascn of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he utas doing utlnt utas either wrong or contrary to laut. The opinions of experts upon ttrc question whether the sgmptoms exhibited by A commonlg shou.t unsoundness olf mind, and whetler such u;T soundness of mind usuallg renders persons incapable of knouing the nature of ttrc acts whichtteg do, or of krwwirq tlwt wh.at theg do is either urong or contrary to law, are releuant. (c)Tle gaestion is, whettter a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proued or admitted.to lnue been written bg A. The opinions of experls on the question whether tlrc two documents utere wtitten bg the same person or bu different persons, are releuant. 45A. Opinion of Exanniner of Electronic Euidence. [Inserte<t by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2OO8 (10 of 2009), S'ection 52(b).1 When in a proceeding, the court has to form an opinion on ang matter rekating to ang information transmitted or stored in ang computer resource' or anA other electronic or digital form, tlte opinion of the Examinor of Electronic Euidence referred to in Section 79-A of the Information Technology Act 2OOO(21 of 2OO0)is a relevantfact. Explainction - For tlrc purposes of this Section, an Examinor of Electronic Euidence shall be an expert.l" (verbatim reproduced)

10. The abcve provision does not fix any time frame for sending the documents to a handwriting expert and that such petition can be fited at any stage of thLe trial. In fact, sending the disputed signatures even before commencement of trial may facilitate the respondent/plaintiff to come forward with additional evidence to overcome the handwriting expert report in czLse said report is in the favour of the revision l I 6 RY,J crp_1945_2024 petitioner/defendant. No prejudice likely to be caused to the case of the respondent/plaintiff in case the hanclwriting expert is not in favour of the revision petitioner/defendant. In either case, the respondent/plaintiff is not likely to suffer any loss or prejudice. The second reason cited for dismissal of the petition i.e., I.A. No. 317 of 2A23 is that not furnishing admitted signatures and contemporary signatures. The Court could have always directed the revision petitioner to submit his admitted signatures by taking them in open court and upon taking signatures from him, the Court can direct him to produce contemporary signatures for comparison by a handwriting expert. 1 1. In the circumstances stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reasons cited for dismissal of the petition i.e., I.A. No. 317 of 2023 are not valid and sustainable and therefore, the order order dated 22.o3.2024 passcd by the trial court is liable to be set aside.

12. Accordingly, the civil Revision Petition is Allowed. The impugned order dated 22.03.2024 in I.A. No. 3 rr of 2023 in o.s. No. 36 of 2019 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool, is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous { To, SD/.AHSGOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII OFFICER

1.. The Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool. (with recorus if apv) Cr''td-' ' \ \

2. One CO to SRl. M.Damodar Reddy, Advocate IOPUCI 3. Two Ctt Copies / i I t I I t It' HIGH COURI DATED: 1511012025 \ \ ORDER cRP.No.194tiof 2024 HE\ \ 2 B Jr}l 202[ -$/ { C C) \ * CIVIL REVISI.fN PETITION IS ALLOWED J-t<s ^l,lu