Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Chappidi Ravindranatha Reddy vs Challa Narasamma on 10 July, 2026
Date of reserved for orders: 03.07.2026
Date of pronouncement : 10.07.2026
Date of uploading : 10.07.2026
APHC010609252025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE 10th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3196 and 3197 of 2025
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3196/2025
Between:
1. CHAPPIDI RAVINDRANATHA REDDY,, S/O. LATE C.KONDA
REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O.
CHAVVA NAGAYAPALLI VILLAGE, R.S. KONDAPURAM MANDAL
KADAPA DISTRICT
2. CHAPPIDI PRATHAPA REDDY,, S/O. LATE C.KONDA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC TEACHER, R/O. CHAVVA
NAGAYAPALLI VILLAGE, R.S. KONDAPURAM MANDAL, KADAPA
DISTRICT.
3. CHAPPIDI PAKKEERA REDDY,, S/O. LATE C.KONDA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. CHAVVA
NAGAYAPALLI VILLAGE, R.S. KONDAPURAM MANDAL KADAPA
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. CHALLA NARASAMMA, W/O. SUBBA RAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 62
YEARS, R/O. JAMBULAPADU VILLAGE, TADIPATRI MANDAL,
ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. CHALLA BASAIAH DIED BY HIS LRS.
Page 2 of 12
2. CHALLA NARASAMMA, W/O. LATE C.BASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58
YEARS, R/O. P.M.KONDAPURAM VILLAGE YELLANURU
MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
3. CHALLA VENKATA NARASIMHULU, S/O. LATE C.BASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. P.M.KONDAPURAM VILLAGE,
YELLANURU MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
4. CHALLA LAKSHMI NARASIMHHULU, S/O. LATE C.BASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. P.M.KONDAPURAM VILLAGE,
YELLANURU MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
5. CHALLA SATYAVANI, D/O. LATE C.BASAIAH, W/O. VELURU
SUDHARSHANA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O.
T.KOTTAPALLI VILLAGE, YADIKI MANDAL, ANANTAPUR
DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in
the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be
pleased toMemorandum of Grounds of Civil Revision petition being
aggrieved by the order 24.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.402 of 2024 in
O.S.No.22 of 2024 on the file of the Civil judge (Senior Division), Gooty,
Anantapur District
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.22 of 2024 on
the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gooty, Anantapur District
pending disposal of the C.R.P.No.3196 of 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. K NARSI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA
Page 3 of 12
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3197/2025
Between:
1. CHAPPIDI RAVINDRANATHA REDDY, S/O. LATE C.KONDA
REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O.
CHAVVA NAGAYAPALLI VILLAGE, R.S. KONDAPURAM MANDAL,
KADAPA DISTRICT. 2.
2. CHAPPIDI PRATHAPA REDDY,, S/O. LATE C.KONDA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC TEACHER, R/O. CHAVVA
NAGAYAPALLI VILLAGE, R.S. KONDAPURAM MANDAL KADAPA
DISTRICT.
3. CHAPPIDI PAKKEERA REDDY,, S/O. LATE C.KONDA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. CHAVVA
NAGAYAPALLI VILLAGE, R.S. KONDAPURAM MANDAL, KADAPA
DISTRICT
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. CHALLA NARASAMMA, W/O. SUBBA RAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 62
YEARS, R/O. JAMBULAPADU VILLAGE TADIPATRI MANDAL,
ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. CHALLA BASAIAH DIED BY HIS LRS. 2.
2. CHALLA NARASAMMA, W/O. LATE C.BASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58
YEARS, R/O. P.M.KONDAPURAM VILLAGE, YELLANURU
MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3.
3. CHALLA VENKATA NARASIMHULU, S/O. LATE C.BASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. P.M.KONDAPURAM VILLAGE,
YELLANURU MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
4. CHALLA LAKSHMI NARASIMHHULU, S/O. LATE C.BASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. R/O. P.M.KONDAPURAM VILLAGE
YELLANURU MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5
5. CHALLA SATYAVANI, D/O. LATE C.BASAIAH, W/O. VELURU
SUDHARSHANA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O.
T.KOTTAPALLI VILLAGE, YADIKI MANDAL ANANTAPUR
DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Page 4 of 12
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in
the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be
pleased toThe above-named petitioners beg to present this Memorandum
of Petition being aggrieved by the orderGrounds of Civil Revision
24.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.403 of 2024 in O.S.No.22 of 2024 on the file
Division), Gooty, Anantapur District for theof the Civil Judge (Senior
following among other
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.22 of 2024 on the file of
the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gooty, Anantapur District, pending
disposal of the C.R.P.No. of 2025 and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. K NARSI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER
The plaintiffs in the suit filed the above two revisions against two
separate orders dated 24.07.2025 in I.A.Nos.402 and 403 of 2024 in
O.S.No.22 of 2024 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gooty.
2. Since the issues involved in the two revisions are inter-related,
arising out of the same suit in two interlocutory applications, this Court
deems it appropriate to dispose of the two revisions by a common order.
Page 5 of 12
3. The plaintiffs initially filed suit O.S.No.192 of 2015 on the file of the
Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri, against the defendants seeking specific
performance of the agreement of sale dated 11.02.1991 executed by the 1st
defendant and the deceased 2nd defendant, in favour of late Kondareddy,
father of plaintiffs 1 & 2 and father-in-law of 3rd plaintiff.
4. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement and contended that the
alleged signatures of the executants on the alleged agreement are forged
and the agreement is fabricated. Thereafter, the suit, O.S.No.192 of 2015,
was transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gooty, to
be tried along with O.S.No.6 of 2015, filed by the defendants, seeking a
declaration of title and recovery of possession.
5. The plaintiffs got the suit agreement impounded with the Court by
paying the requisite stamp duty and penalty. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed
I.A.No.402 of 2024 under Section 151 of CPC, to direct the 1st defendant to
appear and give a thumb impression and to send the same to the expert to
compare the thumb with the thumb on the agreement of sale and to direct
the other defendant, i.e., legal heirs of 2nd defendant to produce the
documents containing the admitted signatures of 2nd defendant and to send
the same to the handwriting expert.
6. I.A.No.403 of 2024 was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence
Act (Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) r/w Section
151of CPC, to send the agreement of sale dated 11.02.1991 to the
handwriting expert for examining of left-hand thumb impression of 1st
defendant and signature of deceased 2nd defendant, with the admitted
thumb impression of 1st defendant and admitted signature of 2nd defendant.
Page 6 of 12
7. The respondents filed separate counters and opposed the
applications. It was contended that the 1st defendant gave evidence in the
connected suit O.S.No.6 of 2015, and if the Court concludes that the thumb
impression of the 1st defendant is required for comparison, the said thumb
impression can be used.
8. Heard Sri K.Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri
Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for the respondents.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the
defendants 1 and 2 executed an agreement of sale dated 11.02.1991 in
favour of late Kondareddy and put the said Kondareddy in possession of
the property. The said Kondareddy cultivated the land, and after his
demise, the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the land.
The revenue authorities updated the records of rights. In view of the denial
in the written statement regarding the very execution of the document by
defendants 1 and 2, the aforementioned I.As were filed. He would further
submit that though two reliefs were sought in the I.As, however, the plaintiff
confined the relief and requested the Court to summon the 1st defendant
and give the thumb impression in the Court and to send the same to the
expert for comparison.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would
contend that the agreement of sale dated 11.02.1991 is not yet marked and
hence, sending the document to the expert to ascertain the thumb
impression does not arise and is premature. Since the trial Court exercised
the discretion vested with it, the impugned orders do not call for any
interference while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
Page 7 of 12
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following decisions:
a) Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad Vs. Ravi Surya Prakash
Babu (died) per L.Rs. and others1.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the following
decisions:
13. Now, the points for consideration are:
1) Whether a document that was not marked can be sent to the
handwriting expert for comparison of the thumb impression
with the admitted thumb impression?
2) Whether the orders dated 24.07.2025 in I.A.Nos.402 and 403
of 2024 in O.S.No.22 of 2024 on the file of the Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Gooty, suffer from any illegality?
14. Shorn of all unnecessary details, the suit O.S.No.22 of 2024
(O.S.No.192 of 2015), was filed seeking specific performance of the
agreement of sale dated 11.02.1991. The 2nd defendant filed a written
1
2016 (2) ALT 248 (F.B.)
2
C.R.P.No.2471 of 2023 dated 26.09.2023 of Telangana High Court
3
2012 SCC OnLIne Cal 5193
4
2004 (3) ALD 439 : 2004 SCC OnLine AP 66
5
2006 (4) ALD 460 : 2006 SCC OnLine AP 425
6
2002 LiveLaw (SC) 39
Page 8 of 12
statement and denied execution and also the passing of consideration.
According to the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant, being a marks-woman, put her
thumb impression on the agreement of sale, and the deceased 2 nd
defendant signed the agreement of sale.
15. Though two reliefs were sought in I.As, as seen from the orders, the
plaintiffs confined the relief to one prayer i.e. to direct the 1st defendant to
appear before the Court and to give a thumb impression and thereafter to
send the document to the expert for comparison. The opinion of an expert
in relation to thumb impressions is more relevant than the opinion of an
expert in relation to handwriting, since the opinion of an expert in relation to
thumb impressions is an exact science.
16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaspal Singh Vs. State of Punjab 7 ,
observed thus:
8. … … The science of identifying thumb impression is an exact
science and does not admit of any mistake or doubt … …”
17. The trial Court dismissed both the applications on the ground that the
defendants challenged the suit on the ground of limitation, which is a
preliminary issue to be decided by the Court. It further held that the
substantial issues are not framed before the Court, and unless the evidence
adduced before the Court by the plaintiffs, for the denial or admission of
documents as well as the disputed signatures or thumb impressions, the
procuring of the other ancillary issues is premature.
18. In the considered opinion of this Court, the observations of the trial
Court in the light of the relief sought by the plaintiffs do not withstand legal
7
AIR 1979 SC 1708 : (1980) 1 SCC 487 : 1979 SCC OnLine SC 223
Page 9 of 12
scrutiny. In fact, sending the document to the expert for comparison of the
thumb impression will help the Court, in case the Court negatives the plea
of the defendants vis-Ã -vis the limitation.
19. The 1st defendant, as seen from the plaint, was aged about 62 years
in 2015. In a Research article on Impact of aging on fingerprint ridge
density: Anthropometry and forensic implications in sex inference,
published by Elsevier, Volume 58, Issue 5, it was observed thus:
“Over the years, the ridges’ surface tends to flatten because of a
combination of epidermal atrophy and the remodeling of the dermal
papillae. This flattening of the epidermal ridges occurs slowly over
several decades and does not affect the ridges’ pattern. However, as
the ridges flatten, their sharpness decreases. This complicates
tracking ridges and furrows in a fingerprint and is a handicap when it
comes to estimating the ridge density of older individuals”.
20. In the extract referred to supra, the authors believe that due to
ageing, the ridge surface tends to flatten due to epidermal atrophy and the
remodelling of the dermal papillae. In fact, it was further observed by the
authors that epidermal ridges occur slowly as the person ages.
21. This being the scientific position, coupled with the law declared by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in respect of expert opinion that the science of
identifying thumb impressions is an exact science and does not admit of
any mistake or doubt, the trial Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction
vested in it. Since the trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in
it, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. This Court, while exercising the
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, can definitely
interfere with such orders.
Page 10 of 12
22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P)
Ltd.8, observed thus:
“6. The scope and ambit of the exercise of power and jurisdiction
by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The
exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court
to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority
and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a
legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited
prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made
within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or
tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the
courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty
and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where
if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains
uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting
under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or
substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to
correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The
High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior
court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is
so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a
conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.”
23. In Celina Coelho Pereira Vs. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar9, the
Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the jurisdiction exercised is in the nature
of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant
abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. It was further
8
(2001) 8 SCC 97 : 2001 SCC OnLine SC 1097
9
(2010) 1 SCC 217 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 69 : 2009 SCC OnLine SC 1756
Page 11 of 12
observed that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is
no miscarriage of justice.
24. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in
Velamala Jagadish‘s case and Kaveti Sarada‘s case are similarly
situated cases. The issue in those cases relates to sending the document to
the expert for comparing handwriting, but not thumb impression. The
observation in the said cases, regarding sending the document to the
handwriting expert, in the opinion of this Court, does not apply to the facts
of this case, since the facts therein are different from the facts herein.
25. A learned single Judge of this Court in Ummaka Sivaiah Vs. The
State of Andhra Pradesh10, considering the aspect of sending a document
yet to be admitted for expert, observed thus:
“… … Order XXVI Rule 10A C.P.C. deals with appointment of a
Commissioner for scientific investigation and this provision did not
disclose any such bar that an unmarked document cannot be referred
to an expert for scientific investigation. Similarly, none of the
provisions either in C.P.C. or in other enactments, created any
interdict to refer such document to the expert for comparison. … … To
avoid unnecessary delay in examining the issue by the trial Court after
trial, it is appropriate to refer the document even before marking the
same as an exhibit so that the Court can avoid unnecessary delay in
marking the document and proceed with the trial.”
The learned single Judge disagreed with the opinion of the Madras
High Court, where the Madras High Court opined that sending a document
to the expert, without marking, is impermissible.
10
C.R.P.No.1379 of 2019 dated 03.07.2019
Page 12 of 12
26. In fact, as observed supra, the defendants alternatively would
contend that the thumb impression of the 1st defendant is available in the
connected suit O.S.No.6 of 2015 and the same can be sent to the expert
for comparison, which reveals that the 1st defendant participated in the trial
in O.S.No.6 of 2015. Keeping in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Jaspal Singh‘s case (supra-7), the science of identifying
thumb impressions is an exact science; this Court is of the considered
opinion that the trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. The
orders passed by the trial court brook interference.
27. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Revision
Petitions are allowed. The orders dated 24.07.2025 in I.A.Nos.402 and 403
of 2024 in O.S.No.22 of 2024 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Gooty, are set aside. I.A.Nos.402 and 403 of 2024 in O.S.No.22 of 2024
stand allowed. The trial Court shall get the thumb impression of the 1st
defendant and thereafter send the same to the fingerprint expert for
comparison with the thumb impression on the suit agreement dated
11.02.1992. No costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand
closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
PVD
Whether the order is :
Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No
Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
