The High Court · 2025

.L:F^IgT9.h, Aged about 46 years, Occu- Darya na rayanapura rn, Varni (M),' Nizam-aOi-a ... RespondenU irta intiff ruo-.i- 2. Boyapati Ramakrishna,,prasad, S/o_ Late Rama Kotajah, AgbO about 69 years, P;,'r;.t1'J}?:il,.Y'r5l'lrvoiro,oli,.i,i;iliilrvra*"iepiiir"*niJ,'i?,,. 2il6eiioii'li'[ti.61'fi ,jj,,I,ffi 3l;ol|i.,,r,,,r:..H5$,jfhffi ;,,*T":, q6' G;;. 5;:"ri;r'," wire R/o'Firl r.i; fib:''8f,";?'.11r?"r"il:m:l Apartments, Near Katyan .reweileis, Kukatpa,y, Hyderabad,

3. Boyapati padmaja Vani, Wo Late Boyapati Rama 'rilir;i'Xrr!"r, '%"J,i:t*1?#3,rx.*.J,:'F,s,}iizifl Near Katyan Jewel6rs, ejtrli Nigri, K;i."tr;;jil: ft, ;B,fl+fl fr .;xf,i,,fi :fl ,i3"xT:I,f,: f

5. Boyapati Pailavi, D/o years Occ- Emolovert R/o Flat'Nb.210, Near Katyan Jerivetiers, earaji Nigai?Jr#ljfiivl'irio.rabad, T. S. Lgl"_p_gY.qprl,.Ramakrishna prasad aged about 44 Marwel Apartments -Of,ai.n'rsashta ...Proposed Respondents. No.3 to 5 / LRs of deceased 2nd Respondent. L/ IA NO: oF 2025 1 petition under section .15.1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the Order dated 18/06/2025 passed in lA No 115 oI 2025 in O S No I of 2O21, by the V Additional District Judge at Bodhan pending disposal of this Civil Revision Petition IANO:3 OF 2025 petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O S No I of 2021' on the file of the court of the V Additional District Judge at Bodhan' pending disposal of this Civil Revision Petitton. Counsel for the Petitioner: MT.MS.SRINIVASAIYENGAR' Adv' Rep'. rvri.'iloinacHERUVU RAMESH BABU' Adv' Counsel for the Respondent No'1 : Mr. KHAMAR KIRAN KANTAMNENI' Adv The Court made the following: ORDER ---7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL RE VI SION P ETITION No.2227 oF 2025 ORDER r have heard fi/r-rr,'.s.srinivasa ryengar, rearned senior counser, on beharf of Mr.Kothacheruvu Ramesh Babu, rearned counser for the revision petitioner and [vrr. tVrd.rmran Khan, rearned senior counser, on behalf of I\Ir.Khamar Kiran Kantamneni, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 2 This Civil Revision petition is filed by the revision petitionei'/defendant No 1 aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2025 passed in IA'No 115 0t 2025 in o.s.No 1 0f 2021 0n the fire of the learned Il Additional District Judge, Nizamabad

3. The revision petitioner is respondent No.iidefendant No.1 in r.A. No. l15 of 2025 in O.S. No.1 of 2021 . The sail ,tntertocutory Application was fired by praintiff No.2 (respondent No .r herein) under Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (hereinatter ,the BSA'), seeking a direction to compare the signatures appearing on Ex.A-1|PARTKATTU (pbrtition deed) dated 23.08.20.18, with the admitted signature of respondenUdefendant No.1 as found in the certified copy of the registered gift setflement deed dated 24 12.2020, parked as Ex.B-g2. 2 \ IR./ ( li.l'.-\4. )))- al )0)5

4. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the suit' O S No I of 2021 , was instituted for partition and Separate possession of the Suit schedule properties along with a ptayer for allotment of exclusive shares with metes and bounds and a consequential injunction resiraining the defendants from alienating the properties during pendency of the proceedings During trial' respondent No 1 introduced the partition deed (ExA-1) The petitioner objected to its marking on the ground of insufficiency of stamp duty and want of registration The trial Court, by order dated 20 03 2024 in l A No 97 of 2024' noted that the document had been impounded and requisite stamp duty with penalty was collected, and therefore' permitted its use for collateral purposes. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a civil revision petition before this Court. This Court' upon examining the matter' held that the document was unregistered' incomplete since all parties had not signed it, and therefore, inadmissible in evidence. Consequently' the order of the trial Court receiving and marking the document was set

5. Thereafter, the respondents/plaintiffs preferred Special Leave Appeal, SLA (C) No'l 1602 of 2024' before the Hon'ble Supreme Cou(. By order dated 24'052024' the Hon'ble Supreme Court observedthatthedisputedpartitiondeedcouldbegivenatentative marking, leaving it open to both par:ties to raise all contentions on its 3 \ 7R./ (../t /'. \a l):- ,/ .o:; admissibirity at the stage of final hearing of the suit. subsequent to this order' the present impugned petition was fired before the triar court seeking comparison of signatures. 6 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in clear terms, directed that the question of admissibirity of the document must be considered onry at the stage of finar adjudication. However, by firing the present petition under Section 72 oI the BSA, the respondents are attempting to indirectly secure an admission of the document,s authenticity by initiating comparison of signatures, thereby crrcumventing the supreme court's order. rt is argued that permitting such comparison at this stage wourd amount to treating the document as admitted in evidence' which stands contrary to the supreme court,s directions. Learned senior counser further submits that comparisol of signatures itself constitutes adducing of evidence, .and on,ce undertaken, it effectivery resurts in the document being read in evidence, something barred both by the supreme court's order and the statutory prohibition under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 190g. Hence, it is urged that the impugned order of the triar court is patenry unsustainabre , ex facie illegal, and liable to be set aside. . 4 \lli./ (-.R.1).,\a. ll2 ol l0l i '1

7. Conversely' learned Senior Counsel for respondent No 1 submits that the trial Court had originally permitted the disPuted and that the document to be relied upon for collateral purposes' Hon'ble Supreme Court subsequently directed only tentative marking' expressly leaving the issue of admissibility to be decided at the stage of final adjudication Since the genuineness of the signatures is itself disputed and this Court has already observed in C R P' No 110'l of 2024, byorder dated 15 04 2024'that the document is incomplete as it does not bear the signatures of all necessary parties' respondent No 1 contends that comparison of signatures under Section 72 of the BSA is a legitimate procedural step Such comparison' it is argued' does not' itself, predetermine or confer admissibility upon the document Respondent No.'1 further submits exercise would merely aid the Court in determining whether the document has been propprly executed' without in any manner foreclosing the larger issue of admissibility lt is also argued that the trial Court retains full authority to decide the admissibility of the document independently at the final stage of trial' and that the Present exerclse of signature comParison does not prejudice that determination tvloreover' as the suit concerns partition of immovable properties, a comprehensive and fair adjudication necessarily requires an inquiry into whether the disputed deed was in fact executed by the parties ln this context' allowing comparison of 5 .\ 7R./ (..It- /'] \r,, tt)- ot t|ti signatures serves the ends of justice by ensuring that arr rerevant factual aspects are before the Court. Accordingly, the impugned order is both lawful and procedurally appropriate, and that interference with such an order is unwarranted.

8. I have carefulry considered the submissions of the rearned Senior Counsel and perused the materials on record v The record clearly reflects that the Hon,ble Supreme Court has categorically directed that the marking of document/PARIKATTU/Ex.A-.1 shall remain tentative, and that the rssue of its admissibirity is to be determined onry at the stage of finar adjudication

10. The contention of respondent No..l is that this Court, in C.R.p. No.1101 of 2024 by order dated 15.04.2024, held that t|e document is inadmissible on the ground that all parties had not signed it, rendering it incomplete. According to respondent No.1, this deficiency could be established through examination of the disputed signatures by the Court 11 . At the outset, the version of the petitioner deserves careful consideration. The prayer in the present petition is to compare the signatures in the disputed d.cument with those inadmitted documents, 6 ,\ I n./ (-.li.l'.,\ a. 222, ol 201i necessarily falls within the scope of proving the contents of the document. However, without first addressing the question of admissibility, proceeding to examine the signatures is' in principle' impermissible. Even if the signatures on the document are examined' such an exercise would only establish whether a particular person signed the document; it would not' by itself' resolve the issue of admissibilitY. 12 Respondent No '1 asserts that the petition has been filed solely to address this Court's earlier observation in the aforesaid CRP that the document is inadmissible for want of signatures lt is well settled that admissibility of a document depends not only on whether it bears the necessary signatures, but also on whether it satisfies other statutory formalities. Although the document has been duly stamped upon payment of deficit duty and penalty' admissibility requires a comprehensive judicial evaluation, including registration requirements I and compliance with evidentiary rules'

13. Jt/lere verificatron of signatures does not overcome the legal objections relating to registration or authenticity Nonetheless' under Section 72 of lhe BSA, the Court does have the authority to compare signatures, provided such exerclse is undertaken within the proper framework of law. Examination of signatures may therefore be permissible, but always subject to the Court,s prerogative to first rule on admissibility (.-(-1,_.\o. :-::., 4J U: )

14. ln these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to clarify and direct the trial Court as follows i. The trial Court shall, in the first instance, determine the admissibility of the document, in strict compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. . Comparison of signatures may be undertaken only to the limited extent necessary for determining admissibility, and not as proof of the document's contents. The trial Court may consider comparison of signatures, if relevant, only after first concluding that the document is admissible in evidence. proof of signatures shall then be examined solely for the purpose of establishing authorship, without prejudging or presuming the varidity of the document,s contents. 15 Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition is ordered. There is no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed SD/. K.AMMAJI ry REGISTRAR P //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, M- 1 2 a 4 The V Additional District Judge at Bodhan One CC to Mr. KOTHACHERUVU RAMESH BABU, Advocate [OpUC] One CC to Mr. KHAMAR KTRAN KANTAMNENT Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 2910812025 ORDER CRP.No.2227 ol2025 /'. .l i' ' ::r''',_ ,J, ) 18 SEPffi * o * rtr-C t Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is Ordered' (, \J\ 1