VELAGA SIVARAMA KRISHNA Vs. VELAGA VEERABHADRA RAO
LAWS(APH)-2008-9-111
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 15,2008

VELAGA SIVARAMA KRISHNA Appellant
VERSUS
VELAGA VEERABHADRA RAO Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

BHUPATHIRAJU RAVI KUMAR VS. PALURI SURYA PRAKASA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2009-2-36] [REFERRED TO]
NEERA AGARWAL VS. MAHENDER KUMAR AGARWAL [LAWS(APH)-2009-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
CHIDELLA VENKATESWARLU VS. GURRAM PUSHPA LATHA [LAWS(APH)-2012-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
NAMTEY LEPCHA VS. CHANDRA KUMAR SHARMA [LAWS(SIK)-2011-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED YAKUB VS. ABDUL RAUF [LAWS(RAJ)-2020-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
AALURI MOGULAIAH VS. BURRA ARUNA [LAWS(TLNG)-2020-11-93] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant in O. S. No. 31 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil judge (Fast Track Court) at Gudivada.
(2.)THE respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they got a right of passage of a width of 12 feet on the north east corner of plot No. 3 belonging to the defendant for ingress and aggress and for consequential injunction directing the defendant to demolish the structure covered by schedule 'ab' and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from ever interfering with the joint possession and enjoyment of right of passage. In the plaint, it was mentioned that after purchase of the properties by both parties, they came to an understanding to leave 12 feet wide passage and on 15-09-1987, they reduced their understanding to writing. The plaintiffs filed the said agreement of understanding before the lower Court, which is an unregistered document. The defendant in the written statement categorically denied the execution of such agreement of understanding and is contending that the plaintiffs have no right of passage as claimed by them.
(3.)AT the earliest time, the defendant filed an Application to send the disputed documents to the expert. But, the lower Court dismissed the Application by observing that it is premature. Later, at the time of commencement of the trial, the defendant filed i. A. No. 166 of 2008 reiterating his request to send the document to the handwriting expert for comparison. The plaintiffs opposed the Application by placing some decisions before the lower Court. The lower Court passed an order, dated 27-06-2008, which reads as follows:
"after hearing both sides and perusing the petition and counter it is noticed that it is not necessary to send the agreement for the comparison and opinion of handwriting expert. The court may compare the signatures with admitted signatures of the executant of the document to form an opinion. In view of the discussion I hold that the petition is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. "

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.