CRP/4332/2009 of Narra Venkatarayudu, Vs Narra Devasahya Rao, on 29 December 2009

O R D E R:

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 29-7-2009 passed in I.A.No.462 of2008 in O.S.No.18 of 2002 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki,D1 and D2 have filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India.

2. Background facts in a nutshell leading to filing of this revisionare:

R1 herein is the plaintiff and whereas R2 to R10 are D3 to D10 inO.S.No.18 of 2002. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the suitschedule property for partition and separate possession of his share inthe suit schedule properties. He claimed the properties by virtue of anunregistered WILL dated 4.5.1983 executed by Narra Suraiah.According to him, he and Narra Venkata Saraswathamma are thebeneficiaries of the WILL. D1 to D4 took the plea in the suit that NarraSuraiah did not execute the alleged WILL on 4.5.1983. The saidSuraiah executed Ex.A5 gift deed on 18.4.1983. According to D1 toD4, Ex.A6 WILL dated 4.5.1983 propounded by the plaintiff is a forgeddocument. The plaintiff reported no objection for sending Exs.A5 andA6 to a handwriting expert, fingerprints bureau, the Government ofA.P., Hyderabad and not to any private expert. Accordingly, the saidapplication was allowed and the documents were sent to the office ofGovernment examiner of questioned documents, Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory. The Government Expert sent his reportopining that the signatures contained in Exs.A5 and A6 belong to oneand the same person. Thereupon, D1 to D4 filed I.A.No.223 of 2008seeking a direction to the Government Handwriting Expert to send thephotographs of the disputed and admitted signatures and thecomparison chart etc. to enable them to get ready with the cross-examination of the concerned expert. The said application came to beallowed and accordingly the concerned expert transmitted thephotographs and other material to the Court.

3. D1 to D4 filed I.A.No.462 of 2008 u/s 45 of the Indian EvidenceAct r/w 151 CPC and Rule 100 of Civil Rules of Practice to sendEx.A6, an unregistered WILL executed by Narra Suraiah on 4.5.83 toanother handwriting expert i.e. Truth Labs, INC 402, Apoorva Towers,Plot No.96, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad for comparison of thealleged signatures of said Narra Suraiah with the admitted signaturesof Ex.A5. D1 has sworn to the affidavit in support of the petition. Therelevant portion of the affidavit need to be noted and it is thus:

“ ….But the opinion given by the expert named above, is notproper and it is not in accordance with the scientific knowledgeregarding hanawriting and the expert must have been prompted to givea wrong opinion for other reasons. Hence, I am advised to file thisapplication requesting the Honourable court to send Ex.A6 disputedwill for comparison of the signatures of Narra Suraiah contained onEx.A6 with his admitted signatures contained in Ex.A5 gift deed dated18.4.1983 executed by the self same Suraiah to another expert i.e.Truth Labs, INC 402, Apoorva Towers, Plot No.96, Road No.2,Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, for his opinion. Hence, this application.”

4. The plaintiff filed counter resisting the application. It is stated inthe counter that the documents cannot be sent to an expert again andagain for opinion that too to a named expert at the whims and fancy ofD1 to D4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the materialbrought on record and on hearing learned counsel appearing for theparties, proceeded to dismiss the application by an order dated 29-7-2009. Para 10 of the order needs to be noted and it is thus:

“ In our case petitioner examined the expert authority, that hehas not suggested any methodology to the expert not brought anyincriminating material to draw any inference in expert’s evidence ashis opinion wrongly, as such, now he cannot agitate that the expert hasnot given opinion in a proper way. Thereby, he cannot be entitled toretransmit the Ex.A6 for another expert. The principles laid down in theabove said citation is applicable in the case in hand and it supports thecontention of the respondent. I too agree with the principles laid downin the above said citation. Considering the above facts andcircumstances, the petitioner has not shown any merit to retransmit theEx.A6 for another expert opinion, as such, this petition is dismissed.”

The order passed in I.A.No.462 of 2008 is assailed in this revision.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ defendantssubmits that the expert who has been examined as P.W.8 has notcompared the signature of Narra Suraiah and instead he compared thedisputed signature of Narra Suraiah in part with his admittedsignatures and therefore the disputed documents containing thesignatures of Narra Suraiah are required to be sent to a private expertfor comparison with the admitted signatures and opinion. To buttresshis submissions, he refers the cross-examination of P.W.8. Muchemphasis has been made on the following part of the evidence ofP.W.8, which reads as under:

“ I mentioned in my X2 report. I explained about two lettersonly i.e. “Na” and “Ra”. I have not felt necessary to explain the othervernacular letters Su, Ra, Yaa. There is no specific reason for notexplaining the others in detail the rest of the character formations asthey are similarly counted for. My warrant does not contain I have tocompare only two letters Na and Ra. The examination was done onthe analysis of all the alphabetical characters. However the reasonswere simplified in explaining the character of Suraiah and hence thesituation of a contra opinion may not arise. There is no set parameterthat a minimum of specimen signatures are required for comparison.”

7. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/R1 supported theorder impugned in the revision. He would contend that once an experthas been examined as a witness, the question of sending the document to another expert does not arise.

8. The only issue that calls for adjudication is – Whether thedocument can be sent back to another expert for comparison of thedisputed signature of Narra Suraiah in toto or to the same expert whohas been examined as P.W.8 to compare the signature of NarraSuraiah in toto with the admitted signatures and offer his opinion.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions ofthe parties. It is not to be forgotten that an expert who submitted hisreport has been examined as P.W.8. He categorically admits that hecompared a part of the disputed signature with the admitted signatures.He also admits that the warrant issued to him does not indicate that hehas to compare only a part of the signature of Narra Narsaiah with hisadmitted signatures. It is also not the case of P.W.8 that the secondpart of disputed signature of Narra Narsaiah is not fit for comparisonwith the admitted signatures. Such is the situation, the course adoptedby the expert to compare only a part of the disputed signature with theadmitted signatures cannot be sustained. Such is the situation, thedisputed signature of Narra Suraiah is required to be examined by anexpert with the admitted signatures in toto.

10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part at theadmission stage and consequently the I.A filed by the petitioners/D1and D2 is also allowed in part and the signature of Narra Suraiah shallbe sent to P.W.8 for comparison with the his admitted signatures in totoand submit report.

29[th] December, 2009. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J)tnbtnb

29[th] December, 2009.