Chandramalla Sangayya v. Posupo Venkataratnam
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 s. 45
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1512 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.592 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. The respondent filed the suit for permanent injunction. His case is that he purchased the plaint schedule property under registered sale deed dated 15.07.1990 from the petitioner and others, that he is peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and that the petitioner and others are trying to interfere with his possession. The petitioner and other defendants are opposing the suit contending that the sale deed is not executed by the petitioner and that his signature is forged. Be that as it is, during the trial, the petitioner filed application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for sending the disputed registered sale deed to handwriting expert. By order dated 21.01.2011, I.A.No.1277 of 2010 having been dismissed, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The counsel for petitioner attacked the impugned order contending that the trial Court failed to give any reasons for not granting the relief under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and that by sending the document, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff. As noticed by the trial Court in paragraph 9 of his written statement, the petitioner admitted that the other vendors signed before the Sub Registrar. But, he alleged that he signed the sale deed before the Sub Registrar on an impression that they are executing the document for the purpose of obtaining the loan. When the sale deed was registered before the Sub Registrar duly admitting the execution, this Court fails to understand as to how the plea can be accepted. Further the suit is for injunction simplisitor. Even if the contention of the petitioner is given some importance, the possession of the plaintiff is important issue in a suit for injunction and therefore, the trial Court was correct in declining to send the registered sale deed dated 15.07.1990 to handwriting expert. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
01.07.2011 Pln _______________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.