HYDERABAD: The High Court has made it clear that when a dispute arises in respect of signatures in documents, the disputed signatures can be referred to an expert along with contemporaneous admitted signatures, calling for his opinion at any stage of the case proceedings before a court. There was no limitation to take such steps and could call for records available with the officials to resolve the dispute, the court noted.
Justice M Satyanarayana Murthy allowed the revision petitions filed by one Lakkineni Suryanarayana, a retired employee from Khammam, by directing the trial court to dispose of the suit in accordance with law immediately on receipt of the opinion from the expert on reference of the disputed signatures on agreement of sale by the respondent defendant (L Ramesh) on schedule property within 30 days from receipt of such report.
In 2010, Suryanarayana had filed a suit before the principal district judge, Khammam for declaration of title to the schedule property i.e. 6.32 acres of land under survey number 144/4A situated at Laxmipuram village in Kalluru mandal in the district and to hand over the vacant land to his possession. When the defendant Lakkineni Ramesh claimed the land by submitting an agreement of sale signed by the petitioner, Suryanarayana sought directions to the tahsildar, Kalluru for production of the original pahanis for the years 1996-1997 to 2016-2017 pertaining to the subject land and to give evidence. It was alleged that the pahanis produced by the defendant in the court were certified copies whereas the petitioner obtained true copy of the pahani of the relevant years and found certain interpolations in the Adangal register. Original pahani register was necessary for deciding the real controversy and what made the revenue authorities to make such corrections which decide the crucial issue of cultivation and possession of the property. When the trial court dismissed his plea, he approached the HC for relief.
The counsel for the petitioner raised an objection to the signatures in the agreement of sale and pointed out that the Adangal pahanis submitted by the defendant were not correct and urged the court to issue directions for summoning the adangal register to ascertain the facts.Justice Murthy allowed the petitions by setting aside the order of the principal district judge, and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit in accordance with law by getting adangal records from the tahsildar concerned.