Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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.

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.