HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.1747 OF 2011 DATED: 11.08.2011 BETWEEN: Smt Katike Gangavva and another .. Petitioners And Ummenthala Bhairaiah and others .. Respondents HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.1747 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 28.02.2011 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad in I.A.No.17 of 2011 in O.S.No.267 of 2003. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties in the revision petition. 3. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.17 of 2011 before the trial Court under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.A.1- lease agreement along with vakalat and written statement of the first defendant-Ummenthala Bhairaiah for the purpose of comparison and opinion by the expert. The said petition was dismissed by the learned trial Court. The plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction basing on the title against the defendants 1 to 4. According to the first plaintiff, defendant No.1 is the tenant under her and executed Ex.A.1 lease deed dated 13.04.1996. Defendants 2 to 4 claimed to be the owners of the property and since they had set up a rival claim against the plaintiffs, it is necessary to send Ex.A.1-lease agreement for comparison of the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature, as the defendants are always playing fraud against the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs want to establish their title to the property on the ground that it is the first plaintiff who leased out the property to the first defendant. Pending suit, the first plaintiff died and her legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 5 and 6. The petition was opposed by the respondents/defendants 2 to 4 contending that having recourse to Ex.A.1-lease agreement which is unregistered, the plaintiffs are not supposed establish their title to the property and that the application was filed only to protract the litigation and they submitted before the learned trial Court that the petition is vexatious and is liable to be dismissed. The learned trial Court according to the contentions of the respondents 2 to 4 dismissed the petition. 4. Now the point for consideration in this revision petition is whether there are any grounds to allow the petition filed by the plaintiffs under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act by setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Court. 5. The learned trial Court rightly held that Ex.A.1-lease agreement which does not confer any title on the plaintiffs and also defendants 2 to 4 have set up a rival claim and they claim title to the property. The plaintiffs can only evict defendants 2 to 4 in the event of their establishing the title to the property against the plea set up by defendants 2 to 4. The first defendant and legal heirs are only tenants in the suit property. In the instant case, the plaintiffs as well as the defendants 2 to 4 made rival claims to the property and therefore, it is absolutely not necessary to send Ex.P.1-lease agreement for comparison of thumb marks of the deceased-first defendant on the said document, vakalat and written statement. There is no error of jurisdiction committed by the learned trial Court in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiffs under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The revision petition, therefore, fails and the same is liable to be dismissed 6. The revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ Date: 11.08.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.1747 OF 2011 DATE: 11.08.2011