SINGAMANENI RAMDEVI Vs. ERUVURI HANUMAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed O.S.No.232 of 2006 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole for the relief of perpetual injunction against the respondents. She pleaded that the respondents executed a sale deed in her favour in respect of the suit schedule property with a condition that in case they fail to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- within the stipulated time, the sale would become absolute and in default, the petitioner would become the absolute owner. According to the petitioner, the respondents failed to pay the amount and thereby, she became the absolute owner. She complained that the respondents started interfering with her possession.

(2.) The plea of the respondents was that they paid the agreed amount within the stipulated time and in receipt thereof, the petitioner had put her thumb impression on the rear side of the sale deed. THE trial Court dismissed the suit. THE petitioner filed A.S.No.114 of 2009 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Ongole. She filed I.A.No.92 of 2011 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act with a prayer to send the document containing the alleged thumb impression, for analysis by a handwriting expert. THE lower appellate Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 14.02.2011, on the ground that the thumb impression is smudged and blurred and it is not possible to undertake any analysis. Hence, this revision.

(3.) It is no doubt true that the petitioner made an effort to get the alleged thumb impression said to have been put in proof of receipt of the amount of Rs.6,000/- examined by a handwriting expert by filing the applications in the trial Court as well as lower appellate Court and that they were dismissed on several grounds. The fact, however, remains that an exercise of that nature can be undertaken if only the petitioner can claim the relief of declaration of title. In a suit for injunction, it is not at all permissible to delve into that question, much less to permit the evidence touching upon the proof of title to the property. The compliance with the conditions stipulated in the sale deed would certainly have bearing upon the proof of title. Though not on the grounds furnished by the lower appellate Court, this Court finds that the whole exercise undertaken by the petitioner is futile.