IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6138 OF 2009 Between: Golla Chittamma and others ..... PETITIONERS AND Golla Nagamma .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioners: Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6138 of 2009 ORDER : The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.202 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapur. The said suit is filed by the 1st respondent herein for cancellation of two gift deeds executed in favour of the deceased husband of the 1st defendant. The revision petitioners/defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement. After issues were settled and the defendants evidence was in progress, the defendants filed I.A.No.918 of 2009 requesting the Court to send Ex.A3 document for an Expert opinion for comparison of the signatures of the deceased-husband of the 1st defendant, with the registered sale deed pertaining to some third parties. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 02.12.2009 and challenging the same, the present revision petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record. Ex.A3 was marked on behalf of the plaintiff claiming that it was an agreement executed by the deceased husband of the 1st defendant. The execution of the said agreement was disputed by the defendants and to substantiate their claim, the present application has been filed with a prayer to send the said document to an Expert for deciding the genuineness of the signatures of the deceased on Ex.A3. Having found that the registered sale deed, which was allegedly attested by the deceased on 12.2.1996, was a document executed 13 years prior to Ex.A3, and that there was no other material to substantiate the plea that the deceased-husband of the 1st defendant had attested the document in question, the Court below dismissed I.A.No.918 of 2008. That apart, since the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish the execution of Ex.A3 agreement, the Court below was also of the opinion that it was not necessary to send the document for an expert opinion at the instance of the defendants. The said conclusions arrived by the Court below on proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be held to be erroneous. Consequently the discretion exercised by the Court below warrants no interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 02.02.2010 Ivd