APHC010062872026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos:417, 432 and 472 of 2026 C.R.P No:417 of 2026 Between: 1. MELAM ANAND, S/O M.GANGA MANDADI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT SURAPPANAIDU KAINDRIGA VILLAGE, DM PURAM POST, KARVETINAGAR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. MELAM CHANDRAMMA, W/O LATE M.SRINIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT SURAPPANAIDU KANDRIGA VILLAGE, DM PURAM POST, KARVETINAGAR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. 2. VARTHALA AMARAVATHI, W/O.V.MUNIKANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT SETTYPALLI VOLLAGE, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3. 3. VARTHALA REVATHI, W/O V.SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, TATTINEDU GOLLAPALI VILLAGE, VADAMALAPET POST AND MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 4. 4. VARTHALA SUMATHI, W/O V.SURESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S.N.KANDRIGA, D.M.PURAM POST, KARVETINAGAR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. PATTERN JAYANTHI, W/O P.NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S.N.KANDRIGA, D.M.PRAM (POST) KARVETINAGARAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): NJS,J C.R.P Nos:417, 432 and 472 of 2026 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DEVALARAJU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NJS,J C.R.P Nos:417, 432 and 472 of 2026 3 The Court made the following Order: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present revision petitions are filed against the common order dated 23.09.2025 in I.A Nos.429, 430 and 487 of 2025 in O.S No.161 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puttur. 3. The petitioner herein is plaintiff, who filed the said suit seeking partition of Suit Schedule Property. 4. When the matter is posted for arguments, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the above three applications seeking to (i) reopen the suit, (ii) call for loan ledgers of Tirupati Co-Operative Bank Limited, Tirupati, bearing loan No.1389 dated 26.09.2001 and loan No.5806 dated 17.08.2004 and (iii) to send the same for comparison of signatures of the husband of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 with the disputed signatures on Ex.A1 i.e., unregistered partition deed dated 15.07.2010. The said applications were resisted by the respondents and ultimately, came to be dismissed vide common order impugned in the present revision petitions. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions to impress upon the Court that in view of the denial of the signatures of the deceased- husband of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in the written statement and the evidence adduced, the petitioner/plaintiff to substantiate his case of execution of unregistered partition deed between the petitioner/plaintiff and the husband of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 had sought for summoning of records i.e., loan ledgers referred to above which contains the signatures of the husband of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1. He submits that the learned Trial Court without considering the matter in the proper perspective, went wrong in dismissing the applications in question. He submits that comparison of the disputed signatures with that of the admitted signatures in the loan ledgers would help the Court in arriving at a just conclusion. He NJS,J C.R.P Nos:417, 432 and 472 of 2026 4 submits that the learned Trial Court went wrong in exercising the discretion vested in it and therefore, seeks interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 6. The learned counsel had also drawn the attention of this Court to observations made by the learned Trial Court that plaintiff has not sought any relief in respect of Ex.A1 i.e., unregistered partition deed and submits that in fact, the case of the petitioner is based on the said unregistered partition deed. Therefore, the observations may come in the way of the petitioner while making appropriate submissions at the time of final arguments in the suit. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 8. On an appreciation of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the point that arises for adjudication is “Whether the common order of the learned Trial Court warrants interference, in the facts and circumstances of the case?” 9. At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that the plaintiff who approached the Court is required to prove his case by adducing cogent evidence. 10. In the present case, on the basis of the unregistered partition deed, Ex.A1, which was specifically referred to in the plaint, the petitioner/plaintiff appears to have sought the relief of partition. 11. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions referring to the observations made by the learned Trial Court as the same were made at interlocutory stage and would not come in the way of recordings, findings or conclusions after hearing the arguments in the main suit with reference to the entire oral and documentary evidence. Be that as it may. NJS,J C.R.P Nos:417, 432 and 472 of 2026 5 12. Insofar as the relief sought for by the petitioner in the applications in question, comparison of the signatures on the documents with that of the disputed signatures can be sought only with reference to the contemporaneous documents. In the present case, the husband of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 allegedly signed the unregistered partition deed dated 15.07.2010 and the loan ledgers which contains the signatures of the husband of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 are of the years 26.09.2001 and 17.08.2004. Therefore, the same cannot be treated as contemporaneous signatures, in the light of the judgment in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad & others vs. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu & others, reported in 2016 (2) ALD 1, wherein it was opined as follows: “7…as a general rule, it would be desirable to undertake comparison of admitted handwritings/signatures with disputed handwritings/signatures which fall within the range of 2 or 3 years from each other. Therefore, there can be no hard and fast norm as to when comparison can or cannot be undertaken owing to the time lag between the two sets of handwritings/signatures…” 13. Though this aspect was not considered in the impugned order, this Court having examined the matter, see no ground to interfere with the impugned common order, even otherwise also as there is no perversity or illegality. 14. Therefore, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:17.02.2026 Ksj