Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
David Vijay Cole vs Jupalli Rupa Sylvia Mounica Cole on 9 October, 2025
APHC010535002024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3328]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2942 OF 2024
Between:
1.DAVID VIJAY COLE, S/O.VIDYA SAGAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC.EMPLOYEE R/O.D.NO.3/115, CHRISTIAN LANE, KADAPA
CITY, YSR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1.JUPALLI RUPA SYLVIA MOUNICA COLE, W/o.Vijay Anand Aged
about 43 years, Occ.House Wife, R/o.D.No.20/978-1, Co-operative
Colony, Kadapa City, YSR District.
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent:
1.A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2942 OF 2024 The Court made the following ORDER:
Heard Sri T.Ravi Teja, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri A.Syam Sundar Reddy, learned Counsel for the Respondent.
2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Defendant/Revision Petitioner challenging the Order passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa dated 13.11.2024 in I.A.No.766 of 2024 in O.S.No.02 of 2017.
3. The facts which are required for the present Revision Petition are that the Plaintiff/Respondent had filed a suit bearing O.S.No.02 of 2017 for Partition of the scheduled properties therein. The Plaintiff therein has placed reliance on a Registered Will dated 29.01.2015 (Ex.A1). The evidence was adduced by the sole Plaintiff in the month of November-2023, wherein, the Plaintiff had deposed about the Photostat copy of the registered Will dated 29.01.2015 (Ex.A1). The original of the said Registered Will dated 29.01.2015 is also marked is Ex.A2. Later, the Defendant/Revision Petitioner had been subjected to chief-examination and cross-examination on 08.07.2024, wherein, the original registered Will that was marked as Ex.A2 was confronted to the Defendant/Revision Petitioner and the Revision Petitioner has admitted the contents of the Ex.A2 and the Photographs and signatures.
4. It is a matter of record that the Defendant/Revision Petitioner had filed I.A.No.421 of 2024 in O.S.No.02 of 2017 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa praying to summon the Joint Sub-Registrar, Kadapa for production of the documents having signatures relating to Gift Settlement Deed dated 04.09.2010.
5. The Ld. VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa had allowed the I.A.No.421 of 2024 vide Order dated 19.07.2024 by summoning the Joint Sub-Registrar, 3 Kadapa causing production of all the documents i.e., 'Signature Sheet' pertaining to the registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 04.09.2010 bearing document No.5133 of 2010 and the 'Signature Sheet' pertaining to the Registered Will dated 29.01.2015 relating to the Plaintiff/Respondent.
6. The Defendant/Revision Petitioner has also simultaneously filed I.A.No.422 of 2024 seeking to send the disputed signatures contained in Ex.A1 alleged Registered Will dated 29.01.2015 along with Ex.B1 Gift Settlement Deed dated 04.09.2010 for comparison of signatures. Ld. VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, vide Order dated 19.07.2024 was pleased to allow I.A.No.422 of 2024 and had forwarded the disputed document (Ex.A1) Photostat copy of the registered Will dated 29.01.2015 along with the photocopy of the admitted document registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 04.09.2010 to the Director, Andhra Pradesh Forensic Laboratory, Mangalagiri., Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred as APFSL) for comparison and expert opinion. Ld. VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa had further directed the Defendant/Revision Petitioner to remit Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand only) by way of Demand Draft towards fee for the Hand Writing Expert.
7. The facts on record would indicate that vide Proceedings dated 04.10.2024, the Director of Andhra Pradesh Forensic Laboratory, Mangalagiri had requested as under:
"Kindly refer to the letter cited, it is to submit that, Photostat/scanned copies received as standard documents are not suitable for examination.
Hence, the documents received are herewith returned with a request to retransmit the originals of the Photostat documents along with extensive admitted signatures around the disputed period for the purpose of comparison.
Inconvenience caused in this regard is very much regretted.
Yours faithfully, sd/- xxxxx DIRECTOR, APFSL, Mangalagiri."4
8. The above extract would indicate clearly that the documents and the Photographs which are sent had been returned by the APFSL with a request "to re-transmit the originals of the Photostat documents along with extensive admitted signatures around the disputed period for the purpose of comparison."
9. In view of the Proceeding dated 04.10.2024 from the APFSL, the Defendant/Revision Petitioner had filed I.A.No.766 of 2024 requiring the Court to summon the original of Ex.B1 Gift Settlement Deed dated 04.09.2010. The Plaintiff/ Respondent had filed her objection contending that the signatures on the original Gift Settlement Deed cannot be compared inasmuch as the said signatures are not contemporaneous. Vide the impugned Order dated 13.11.2024, the Ld. VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa was pleased to dismiss the I.A.No.766 of 2024 filed by the Defendant/Revision Petitioner stating that directing the Plaintiff to produce original registered Gift Settlement Deed (Ex.B1) would not serve the purpose for comparison of Ex.B1 document with registered Will dated 29.01.2015 (Ex.A1) as the said documents are not contemporaneous in point of time.
10. Admittedly, I.A.No.766 of 2024 is a sequel to the Order passed by the Ld. VI Additional District Judge in I.A.No.422 of 2024 wherein, the Ld. VI Additional District Judge had sent the Photostat copies which are Ex.A1 and Ex.B1 to the APFSL for obtaining expert opinion. Admittedly, insofar as the order passed by the Ld. VI Additional District Judge, in I.A.No.422 of 2024 dated 19.07.2024 is concerned, the Plaintiff/Respondent never objected to the same.
11. As a sequel to the proceedings issued by the Director, APFSL dated 04.10.2024, when original documents were sought to be sent (which are original of registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 04.09.2010 (Ex.B1) and original registered Will dated 29.01.2015 (Ex.A1)), the Plaintiff/Respondent has raised objection with regard to contemporaneity of the signatures. The period of time between the Ex.A1 and Ex.B1 is only about five years.
512. The Defendant/Revision Petitioner has placed reliance on the Judgment of this Hon'ble High Court in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad Vs. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and others; AIR 2016 HYD 118; (2016) 2 ALT 248 (FB). Ld. Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has placed reliance on Para Nos. 22 to 24 of this judgment, which are usefully extracted hereunder:
"22. When oral evidence clearly established that a person executed a certain document it would be completely unnecessary for the Court to embark upon an investigation into the signatures by comparison. Having regard to the opinion expressed by the Court below, I had to take the trouble of comparing the signatures in Ex.B-3 with the signatures contained in Ex.A-1, although it was not quite correct to do so having regard to the long interval of time between the two signatures. I find that the two prominent letters B and Z are almost exactly similar. It is clear from the above extract that the case before the learned Single Judge was not one arising under Section 45 of the Act of 1872 relating to expert opinion on disputed handwritings/signatures. The learned Judge was not dealing with the issue of capability of an expert to compare signatures which were six years apart and on the other hand, found upon his own comparison that the signatures tallied. The learned Judge, no doubt, added the caveat that the comparison undertaken by him was not quite correct having regard to the long interval of time between the two signatures, but this observation need trouble us no longer in the light of the expert opinion tendered by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, which is to the effect that there can be no hard and fast rule as to a time lag definitively rendering comparison of handwritings/signatures futile.
(Emphasis supplied)
23. The Division Bench judgment in JANACHAITANYA HOUSING LIMITED1 was rendered upon a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the question as to whether an application under Section 45 of the Act of 1872 for expert opinion on disputed signatures could be entertained at a later stage of the suit, including when the suit was coming up for arguments after the entire trial. Contemporaneity of the signatures in dispute and the admitted signatures was not even in issue before the Division Bench. Upon due consideration of the case law on the point, the Division Bench answered the reference as under:
24. For the reasons aforementioned, we answer the reference thus : No time could be fixed for filing applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act 6 for sending the disputed signature or writings to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion and same shall be left open to the discretion of the court; for exercising such discretion when exigencies so demand, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the each case."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. The extract of the above judgment of the Full Bench would make it amply clear that there can be no hard and fast rule as to a time lag definitively rendering comparison of handwritings/signatures futile. This Court is bound by the Judgment of the Full Bench. This apart, the Plaintiff/ Respondent cannot raise an objection at this stage on the ground that the signatures in Ex.A2 with that of the original registered Gift Settlement Deed would not be contemporaneous for the reason that the time gap between the registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 14.09.2010 (Ex.B1) and the registered Will dated 29.01.2015 (Ex.A1) is only five years. Having considered the Full Bench decision, this Court is in agreement with the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Revision Petitioner that there is no hard and fast rule as regards the contemporaneity of the document inasmuch as the same is subjected to the appreciation of facts during the course of trial and arguments and that it is not for the trial judge to come to a conclusion at this stage to the contrary. In the above premise, the impugned Order dated 13.11.2024 is set aside. Ld. VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa is directed to forward the originals of Registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 14.09.2010 (Ex.B1) and the Registered Will dated 29.01.2015 to the APFSL for expert opinion.
14. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.
15. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
_________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 09.10.2025 Mnr 7 02 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2942 OF 2024 Dt: 09.10.2025 Mnr