THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.1831 OF 2007 24-06-2010 Between: V.Venkata Swamy son of Late Kashanna and others ..petitioners Vs. V.Manyamaiah and others …Respondents. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.1831 OF 2007 ORAL ORDER This revision by the defendant in O.S.No.46 of 2000 is directed against the order dated 19-12-2006 in I.A.No.117 of 2006. After the institution of this revision, the revision petitioner died and revision petitioners 2 and 3 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased-defendant. The respondent/plaintiff died as well and his legal representatives are also brought on record. As at present therefore this revision is between the legal representatives of the defendant and plaintiff in O.S.No.46 of 2000. The suit was filed for partition of the suit schedule property on a claim that it was joint property of the plaintiff and the defendant. Reliance is placed on a decree in O.S.No.112 of 1984 to substantiate the plaintiff’s contention that the suit schedule property is a joint family property. Six (6) years after the institution of the suit, the revision petitioner/defendant had filed I.A.No.117 of 2006 to call for the record namely the plaint in O.S.No.112 of 1984 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Mahabubnagar for the purpose of sending the same to the handwriting expert for verification of the signatures of the defendant with the signatures of the first plaintiff in O.S.No.112 of 1984 by pleading that the plaintiff in the present suit (O.S.No.46 of 2000) had himself filed O.S.No.112 of 1984 jointly in the name of himself and the revision petitioner/defendant by impersonating/forging the signature of the revision petitioner who was arrayed falsely as a plaintiff in O.S.No.112 of 1984. The court below by the order impugned rightly rejected I.A.No.117 of 2006 by holding that the decree in O.S.No.112 of 1984 was not challenged in any proceedings seeking invalidation of that decree on the ground of its having been obtained by fraud and that the sending of the plaint in O.S.No.112 of 1984 to a handwriting expert for comparison of the signature of the defendant in the present suit with one of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.112 of 1984, is pointless as no relief of a declaration of nullity of the decree in O.S.No.112 of 1984 could be granted in the present suit, O.S.No.46 of 2000. A declaration of nullity of the decree in O.S.No.112 of 1984 is beyond the scope of the present suit O.S.No.46 of 2000 was also a reason for rejecting the application. It requires to be noticed that the decree in O.S.No.112 of 1984 is a judicial proceeding of which full faith and credit should be given through out the territory of India qua Article 261 of the Constitution. Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 also enacts that documents forming the acts or records of the State, of Sovereign authority, of official bodies and Tribunals, and of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the Commonwealth, or of a foreign country, are public documents. The decree in O.S.No.112 of 1984 cannot therefore be derecognized by a side wind by the contrivance of obtaining an opinion on comparison of the handwriting of the revision petitioner/defendant in O.S.No.46 of 2000 with the signature of one of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.112 of 1984. Irrespective of the opinion of the handwriting expert or the court’s acceptance, in whole or part of such opinion and the conclusions drawn therefrom, the court in O.S.No.46 of 2000 cannot declare the nullity of the decree in O.S.No.112 of 1984 at the instance of the revision petitioner/defendant and in circumstances where the validity of the decree is not even an issue in O.S.No.46 of 2000. On the aforesaid analysis, the order of the court below rejecting I.A.No.117 of 2006 is impeccable and warrants no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. This Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 24th JUNE 2010 TSNR