Sec.45 of Evidence Act & Or.26, rule 10 -A C.P.C - petition to send the Stamp papers to the Nasik Maharashtra for knowing the date of issue - as the document was written with anti date - Trial court dismissed the same on the ground of delay and on the ground that the court can compare the signore - Their Lordships held that the delay does not arise , as filing of petition was arose only after completion of evidence - as the dispute is not about the signature comparison by court does not arise and as such set aside the lower court order and allowed the Revision petition = Ravaluru Venkata Subbamma Ravaluru Somasekhar = 2009 ( April. Part ) http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=6529

Sec.45 of Evidence Act & Or.26, rule 10 -A C.P.C - petition to send the Stamp papers to the Nasik Maharashtra for knowing the date of issue - as the document was written with anti date - Trial court dismissed the same on the ground of delay and on the ground that the court can compare the signore - Their Lordships held that the delay does not arise , as filing of petition was arose only after completion of evidence - as the dispute is not about the signature comparison by court does not arise and as such set aside the lower court order and allowed the Revision petition =
The petitioner
entertained a doubt as to whether the stamp paper was of the year 1956, at all,
or whether the alleged Will was written on a stamp paper of subsequent period.
For this purpose, he wanted Ex.B.1 to be referred to the Government Security
Press, Nasik, Maharashtra. =
What is in dispute in the present context is not the
signature upon the Will, it is the age of the stamp paper on which Ex.B.1 was
written.  It is only the security press that can certify the period of printing
of the stamp papers.  Viewed from any angle, the order passed by the trial Court
cannot be sustained in law.

The C.R.P. is accordingly allowed and the order under revision is set aside.
Consequently, I.A.191 of 2007 is allowed and the trial Court shall send the
original of Ex.B.1 to the Government Security Press, Nasik, to certify the date
or period at which the stamp paper, on which Ex.B.1 was written, was printed.
The trial Court shall also impress upon the urgency involved.  The petitioner
shall incur the necessary expenditure.  The trial of the suit shall be taken up,
soon after the report is received from the Press.
There shall be no order as to costs.

2009 ( April. Part ) http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=6529

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY          
Civil Revision Petition No.720 of 2009

23-04-2009

Ravaluru Venkata Subbamma  

Ravaluru Somasekhar

Counsel for the Petitioner:  Sri P.Veera Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent:  Sri G.Venu Gopal Reddy

:ORDER:

The petitioner filed O.S.No.25 of 2005 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge,
Kadapa, against the respondent, for the relief of declaration of title and
perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property.  The respondent
filed written statement opposing the claim.  He based his claim to the suit
property on a Will, dated 26.07.1956, executed by his grandfather, by name
Subbaiah.  The trial of the suit commenced and the Will was marked as Ex.B.1.
After the evidence was closed, the petitioner filed I.A.No.191 of 2007 under
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short 'the Act'), read with Order 26
Rule 10-A of C.P.C.  The application was opposed by the respondent, mostly on
the grounds of delay.  The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through its order,
dated 14.11.2008.  Hence, this C.R.P.

Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and
Sri G.Venu Gopal Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

The claim made by the petitioner, for the relief of declaration of title and
perpetual injunction, was opposed by the respondent, on the strength of the
Will, dated 26.07.1956, which was marked as Ex.B.1.  It is ultimately for the
respondent to prove the Will, to the satisfaction of the trail Court.

The record discloses that Ex.B.1 was written upon a stamp paper.  The petitioner
entertained a doubt as to whether the stamp paper was of the year 1956, at all,
or whether the alleged Will was written on a stamp paper of subsequent period.
For this purpose, he wanted Ex.B.1 to be referred to the Government Security
Press, Nasik, Maharashtra.  It is no doubt true that Ex.B.1 was filed into the
Court along with the written statement.  However, the petitioner is not supposed
to take any steps
vis--vis the document, till it was spoken to by a witness.  It was only in
March, 2007 that the document came to be marked as Ex.B.1, and shortly
thereafter, the application was filed.  Any attempt made by the petitioner to
disprove the alleged Will, would have certainly alerted the respondent to search
for excuses.  The petitioner was well advised to wait till the cross-
examination, vis--vis the document, was completed.  In case, he is able to
procure any information from the authoritative source that the Will was executed
on a stamp paper of a period subsequent to 1956, the petitioner can certainly
score a point against the respondent.  That ultimately is the gist and object of
the very trial.

Another observation made by the trial Court is that, the Court can itself
undertake comparison of the disputed signatures in exercise of its power under
Section 73 of the Act.  What is in dispute in the present context is not the
signature upon the Will, it is the age of the stamp paper on which Ex.B.1 was
written.  It is only the security press that can certify the period of printing
of the stamp papers.  Viewed from any angle, the order passed by the trial Court
cannot be sustained in law.

The C.R.P. is accordingly allowed and the order under revision is set aside.
Consequently, I.A.191 of 2007 is allowed and the trial Court shall send the
original of Ex.B.1 to the Government Security Press, Nasik, to certify the date
or period at which the stamp paper, on which Ex.B.1 was written, was printed.
The trial Court shall also impress upon the urgency involved.  The petitioner
shall incur the necessary expenditure.  The trial of the suit shall be taken up,
soon after the report is received from the Press.
There shall be no order as to costs.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.