THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5964 of 2009 Dated:19.02.2010 Between: Velagala Suseela (died), And another. …Petitioners and Tetali Sarada, And others. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5964 of 2009 ORDER: Velagala Suseela (since deceased) filed O.S.No.556 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 01.10.1994 executed by Tetali Sarada, who is none other than her elder sister. The suit schedule property originally belonged to the mother of the plaintiff and defendant and the same fell to the share equally to both of them. Under the agreement of sale Sarada agreed to relinquish her right and executed a document in favour of plaintiff and when there was no compliance, the suit was filed. The suit is being opposed by the defendant, inter alia, on the ground that signature on the document is not her own and she never executed such document. During the trial, the said agreement was sought to be marked. But, the Court below on an objection raised by the defendant refused. In the meanwhile, Suseela died and her two sons came on record as legal representatives. The second plaintiff filed C.R.P.No.2363 of 2008 assailing the order of the trial Court dated 16.04.2008 holding the document inadmissible. This Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition on 26.06.2008 agreeing with the Court below. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1675 of 2009 to send the suit agreement – Ex.A1, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to an expert for comparison of the signatures of first defendant in Ex.A1. The same was dismissed on 23.11.2009, aggrieved by which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. This Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the first respondent and fourth respondent. The question is whether a document (containing the disputed handwriting or signature) which is itself inadmissible for want of proper stamp duty or for reason of non-registration can be sent to expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. Section 45 of the Evidence Act is enabling provision. Along with illustration (c) thereunder it reads as under. 45.Opinions of experts:- When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger-impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger-impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. Illustrations (a) Omitted (b) Omitted (c) The question is, whether a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. The opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant. The provision itself does not make any difference between the document which is admissible in evidence and the document which is not admissible in evidence. As per illustration (c) any document which is in dispute can be sent to an expert on the question where such a document is written by the person against whom it is to be proved. This Court in Telugu Krishna Mohan v Boggula Padmavathi[1] considered a similar question and held that when a document is inadmissible in evidence the question of sending the same to Revenue Divisional Officer for levying stamp duty does not arise. The relevant observations are as under. …Since, this Court is of the opinion that the document in question is an unregistered relinquishment deed, the same is not admissible in evidence for want of registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. It is needless to say that the document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration inasmuch as the purpose for which the document is being relied upon is the principal purpose not for any collateral purpose. The question of sending such document to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal for levying of Stamp duty and penalty also may not arise. The question of sending such document to the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for the purpose of comparison would not arise. In the considered opinion of this Court whether it is a question of nonpayment of stamp duty or non-registration, in either case when the document is inadmissible the question of sending it does not arise. However, if an unstampted document is impounded and validated after collecting stamp duty and penalty or if any unregistered document falls within the exceptions in Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, it can always be sent to expert. In this case it is brought to the notice of this Court that at the instance of the plaintiffs the document has already been impounded. As the question whether the document is relinquishment deed or not already stands concluded, the same is inadmissible and therefore no purpose would be served by sending the document to expert. In view of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 19.02.2010 vs [1] 2009 (5) ALD 579