Telangana High Court
Smt. Zareena Bai vs Mr. Altaf on 2 September, 2020
Author: Shameem Akther
Bench: Shameem Akther
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.284 of 2020
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, aggrieved by the order dated 10.01.2020 passed in I.A.No.992 of 2019 in O.S.No.908 of 2017 by the learned XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, wherein the Court below dismissed the subject Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, seeking to send the Memorandum of past oral Gift (Hiba) dated 25.09.2013 to forensic department for handwriting expert opinion for comparing the signatures/thumb impressions of the petitioner, who is the so- called executant, along with the admitted signatures of the petitioner on the plaint, vakalat and evidence of PW.1 (petitioner).
2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that comparison of the signatures/thumb impressions of the petitioner, who is the so-called executant of Memorandum of past oral Gift (Hiba) dated 25.09.2013 is essential for determination of the subject suit, which is filed to declare the oral hiba dated 05.02.2012, Memorandum of past oral gift (hiba) dated 25.09.2013 and registered gift deed dated 10.01.2014 document No.128/2014 as null and void. The original Memorandum of past oral Gift (Hiba) dated 25.09.2013 is forged and fabricated and it was created to knock away the suit schedule property. The 2 petitioner has not signed on the said document. To arrive at a just conclusion, the examination of the subject document dated 25.09.2013 by handwriting expert along with the admitted signatures of the petitioner on the plaint, vakalat and evidence affidavit of PW.1, is necessary and ultimately prayed to allow the subject Interlocutory Application as prayed for.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that no comparison of the signatures is necessary as contended by the petitioner. The Court can compare the admitted and disputed signatures to arrive at a conclusion. Since the contemporaneous signatures of the petitioner are not available, sending of the subject document dated 25.09.2013 for comparison would not yield any result. The Court below is justified in dismissing the subject Interlocutory Application and ultimately prayed to dismiss the civil revision petition and sustain the impugning order.
5. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for determination is:
"Whether the request of the petitioner to send the Memorandum of past oral gift (hiba) dated 25.09.2013, to forensic department for examination and report, be acceded to?"
6. POINT: As seen from the material placed on record, the subject suit in O.S.No.908 of 2017 was filed for declaring the oral hiba dated 05.02.2012, Memorandum of past oral gift (hiba) dated 25.09.2013 and registered gift deed dated 10.01.2014 document No.128/2014 as null and void. The Court below while determining 3 the subject Interlocutory Application was of the view that as the petitioner has not furnished her contemporaneous signature, it would not be proper to send the confirmation of oral hiba dated 25.09.2013 for examination and report and ultimately, dismissed the subject Interlocutory Application. The petitioner denies the execution of Memorandum of past oral gift (hiba) dated 25.09.2013 and also affixation of thumb impression thereon. The petitioner wanted to compare her signatures made on plaint, vakalat and evidence affidavit with that of signatures on memorandum of past oral gift (hiba) dated 25.09.2013. The petitioner is also ready to furnish her handwritings and signatures in the open Court for sending them to handwriting expert for examination and report. The relief sought by the petitioner/plaintiff in the subject suit depends upon the genuineness of the subject document dated 25.09.2013. The contention of the petitioner is that she did not execute the said document and it is fabricated to knock away her property. In the given circumstances of the case, to arrive at a just conclusion and to determine the issues in the subject suit, comparison of the disputed signatures on memorandum of past oral gift (hiba) dated 25.09.2013 with the admitted signatures of petitioner including the handwritings and signatures that would be taken in the open Court is necessary. The Court below ought to have allowed the subject Interlocutory Application.
7. Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 10.01.2020 passed in I.A.No.992 of 2019 in O.S.No.908 of 2017 by the learned XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, is 4 set aside and the Court below is directed to send the disputed document i.e, Memorandum of past oral gift (Hiba) dated 25.09.2013 to forensic department for handwriting expert opinion along with the admitted signatures/thumb impressions of the petitioner found on the plaint, vakalat and evidence affidavit of PW.1. Further, the Court below shall also take the signatures/ thumb impressions and handwritings of the petitioner in the open Court and send them to the handwriting expert for comparison of the signatures and thumb impressions on the disputed document dated 25.09.2013.
8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J Date: 02nd September, 2020.
scs/bvv