Telangana High Court
CRP/4816/2009 of Inapakolla Surya Kumari Satyaveni Vs Smt. Prathipati Jogayyamma on 31 December 2009
A.GOPAL REDDY CRP Nos.4816 and 4844 of 2009 DT.31-12-2009 CRP No.4816/2009: Inapakolla Surya Kumari Satyaveni …Petitioner V. 1. Prathipati Jogayamma and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP Nos.4816 and 4844 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: These two revision
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY
CRP Nos.4816and 4844 of 2009
DT.31-12-2009
CRP No.4816/2009:
Inapakolla Surya Kumari Satyaveni
…Petitioner
V.
1. Prathipati Jogayamma and another
..Respondents
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY
CRP Nos.4816 and 4844 of 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER:
These two revision petitions by the petitioners-defendants aredirected against the common order of the Senior Civil Judge,Ramachandrapuram dt.31-8-2009 passed in IA No.649/2009 and 651/2009respectively.
The petitioners-defendants filed IA No.649/2009 under Section45 of the Evidence Act to send the suit promissory notes marked as Exs.A-1to A-4 to any expert for opinion as to whether the signatures said to be of V.Srinivasa Rao, alleged executant of those promissory notes and the writingin the body of respective pronotes are written at one and the same time. Thepetitioners-defendants also filed IANo.651/2009 to send the promissorynotes marked as Exs.A-1 to A-4 to any handwriting expert for comparisonwhether the signatures said to be that of V.Srinivasa Rao as their executantare identical in all the promissory notes or differ with each other and to giveevidence.
In the affidavit filed in support of the petitioners-defendants ie., IANo.649/2009, it was stated that Exs.A-1 to A-4 are fabricated and created bythe plaintiff with the help of her henchmen and first petitioner-first defendantis acquainted with the signature of her husband never signed Exs.A-1 to A-4.Mere perusal of the signatures said to have been that of Srinivasa Raodiffers from Exs.A-1 to A-4 and hence they should be sent to the expert.
The first defendant, who is examined as D.W.1, in her cross- examination stated that she did not see the original promissory notes filed inthe court. Further, the second defendant after became major filed writtenstatement taking a plea that one of the four promissory notes was fabricatedby taking advantage of the signature of his father when it was blank. But thesecond defendant has not denied the execution of the promissory notes.
The trial court rightly held that to ascertain whether thesignatures under Exs.A1 to A-4 are similar or identical or that they differfrom each other, no expert evidence is required since the executant signedin different manner. It is well settled that expert evidence is a weak piece ofevidence and cannot out weigh the direct evidence adduced by the parties. The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that said Srinivas Rao executed the said promissory notes by leading evidence. Application filed after examiningD.W.1 is only to protract the litigation.
In view of the same, no infirmity is discernible in the commonorder passed by the trial court warranting interference.
Both the civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. Noorder as to costs.
_______________
A. GOPAL REDDY, J
Date:31-12-2009kmr