THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3916 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order, dated 14-06-2010, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, in I.A.No.291 of 2010 in O.S.No.626 of 2006. The petitioners filed the said suit for partition and separate possession of the joint family properties. According to the 1st petitioner, her mother-in- law, Nagarathnamma, was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the said Nagarathnamma had two sons by name Ravichandran and Varadarajulu and her two sons died. The petitioners are the legal heirs of Ravichandran while respondents 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of Varadarajulu. It is stated that the said Nagarathnamma died intestate and, therefore, the property shall devolve upon her legal heirs in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act. According to the petitioners, Nagarathnamma has not executed any will but according to the contesting respondents, Nagarathnamma has executed the will-Ex.B-4. To resolve the said controversy, the petitioners filed I.A.No.291 of 2010 in O.S.No.626 of 2006 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending disputed will Ex.B-4 for comparison with admitted signatures in Exs.X-1 to X-3 to the Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad, for opinion. In the said petition, it is stated that defendants 4 to 6 fabricated and forged the Will said to have been executed by the mother-in-law of the first petitioner namely Nagarathnamma. The 1st petitioner’s husband was contributing three L.I.C. policies, out of which, two policies have been withdrawn by Nagarathanamma, she being the nominee. It is stated that Exs.X-1 to X-3 are the documents relating to discharge of L.I.C. policies. It is stated that the said Nagarathnamma signed on Exs.X-1 to X-3 and, therefore, the signatures of Nagarathnamma containing on Exs.X-1 to X-3 are liable to be compared with signature on Ex.B-4-Will. The said application was resisted by the contesting defendants contending that the Nagarathnamma had not died intestate and she has executed Will-Ex.B-4 and the Will is not fabricated by defendants 4 to 6 as alleged by the petitioners. Insofar as three LIC policies are concerned, out of which, two polices are said to have been withdrawn by Nagarathnamma, she being the nominee. It is stated that the signatures on the discharge receipts marked as Exs.X-1 to X-3 are incorrect. Therefore, they are not admitting signatures marked on Exs.X-1 to X-3 as that of Nagarathnamma. Therefore, the signatures on Exs.X-1 to X-3 cannot be compared with signature on Ex.B- 4-will. The learned Judge vide its order, dated 14-06-2010, dismissed the said application on the ground that the defendants have disputed the signatures on Exs.X-1 to X-3 contending that the said signatures are not that of Nagarathnamma. In the absence of filing of any documents containing signatures of Nagarathnamma, as admitted by the defendants, the will said to have been executed by Nagarathnamma cannot be sent for expert’s opinion. In the instant case, the petitioners are disputing execution of the will by Nagarathnamma but whereas the defendants are disputing signatures of Nagarathnamma on Exs.X-1 to X-3. Therefore, the learned Judge rightly observed that burden heavily lies on defendants 4 to 6 to prove execution of Ex.B-4. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that unless any document containing admitted signature of Nagarathnamma as admitted by defendants is filed by the petitioners for sending Ex.B-4, the question of comparing Ex.B- 4-will with admitted signatures does not arise. Therefore, I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise in the impugned order so as call for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, the burden is on defendants 4 to 6 to establish that the said Will is executed by Nagarathnamma. The defendants are disputing the signatures of Nagarathnamma on Exs.X-1 to X-3. But however, I am of the opinion that if the petitioners want to compare signatures on Ex.B-4-Will with that of Exs.X-1 to X-3, it is open to the petitioners to file an application before the court below to compare signatures by the court itself on Ex.B-4 with that of Exs.X-1 to X-3. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 03-09-2010 Prv