Allowed

G. Velayudhan Thampi v. K.K.Mohanan Thampi

Kerala HC19 Jun 2018OP(C)/572/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This original petition challenged an order refusing to refer a disputed Will for handwriting expert opinion. The High Court allowed evidence reopening for cross-examination, dismissed the challenge to the refusal as it found no irregularity, but left the door open for future expert opinion after all evidence is complete.

What did the court decide?

Evidence in the underlying suit re-opened; original petition disposed of with observation that experts can be consulted post-evidence.

G. Velayudhan Thampi Vs K.K.Mohanan Thampi — Partition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

OP(C).No. 572 of 2018

¶6

(IA.NO.247/2018 IN OS.NO.1840/2010 OF ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/DEFENDANTS:

¶8

1 G.VELAYUDHAN THAMPI, T.C.6/1888, KOOTH ROAD, VATTIYOORKAVU, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

2 S.AMBIKA DEVI THANKACHI,

¶10

T.C.6/1904 (2), PADMALAYAM, KOOTH ROAD, VATTIYOORKAVU, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.R.PADMARAJ SRI.P.J.ANTONY JOSEPH MARIADAS

¶12

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF :

¶13

K.K.MOHANAN THAMPI, T.C.NO.6/1889, POOYAM, KOOTH ROAD, VATTIYOORKAVU, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN SRI.AJIT G.ANJARLEKAR

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-06-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts 21/6/2018

¶17

OP(C).No. 572 of 2018 (O)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.1840/2010 OF ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO. 1840/2010 OF ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.CS-61/15 DATED 29.07.2016 OF THE STATE FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES, THE COPY OF THE DISPUTED WILL AND SETTLEMENT DEED SEND FOR COMPARISON.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF I.A.NO.247/2018 DTD. 06.01.18 IN O.S.NO.1840/2010 OF ADDIL. MUNSIFF COURT-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF I.A. NO.246/2018 DTD. 06.01.18 IN O.S.NO.1840/2010 OF ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 09.02.2018 IN I.A.NO.247/2018 IN O.S. NO.1840/2010 OF ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF I.A. NO.1344/2018 DATED 14.02.2018 IN O.S.NO.1840/2010 OF ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts 21/6/2018

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶26

....................

¶27

O.P.(C) No. 572 of 2018

¶28

.................................

¶29

Dated this the 19^th day of June, 2018

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

An order refusing to refer a document for opinion

¶32

of handwriting expert is under challenge in this original petition.

¶33

The suit is one for partition. The claim for partition is defended by the defendants relying on a Will dated 03.04.2007. At the request of the plaintiff the Will was forwarded to an expert for comparison of the signature of the executant therein, with settlement deed No.987 dated 09.04.2003. The genuineness of the settlement deed is not in dispute. The expert filed a report on 29.07.2016, which is apparently against the defendants. Thereupon, the defendants filed an application as I.A.No.247 of 2018 to send the Will to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Trivandrum for

¶34

O.P.(C) No. 572 of 2018

¶35

¶36

comparison of the signature of the testator with that in six other documents produced by the defendants. The application was dismissed by the court below.

¶37

It is submitted by the learned counsel for

¶38

the petitioners that the documents with reference to which the defendants sought for expert opinion were produced by them before the court even prior to the order of reference to the expert and still no comparison was made with reference to the said document. Noticeably petitioners did not make a request to the court for having comparison made with the said documents said to have been produced by them earlier before the court. The settlement deed which was forwarded for comparison, as noticed, is an undisputed document. When the opinion of the expert stares upon the defendants, they have come up with the present application.

¶39

It is brought to my notice that the evidence

¶40

in the suit has been closed even without cross

¶41

examination of the plaintiff and his witness. I direct the court below to re-open the evidence and permit the defendants to cross examine the plaintiff and his

¶42

O.P.(C) No. 572 of 2018

¶43

¶44

witnesses and permit the defendants to adduce evidence on their side.

¶45

I do not find any irregularity in the impugned order. However, it will be open for the petitioners to adduce evidence at the time of trial against the correctness of the report and also the genuineness of the disputed Will. I make it clear that after the entire evidence is over, if the court feels that further opinion needs to be called for from expert with reference to the documents produced by the defendants, it will be always open for the court below to do so.

¶46

With the above observations and directions, this original petition is disposed of.

¶47

sd/-

¶48

SATHISH NINAN, JUDGE

¶49

AMV/20/06/2018

G. Velayudhan Thampi v. K.K.Mohanan Thampi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Velayudhan Thampi v. K.K.Mohanan Thampi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.v.Govinda Varrier Vs Neermangatt Devaswom

Indiramma Vs Jagadamma

Thomas Shanti Vs Mathai Shanti

K.P.Moideen Kutty Vs K.Krishna Naik

Moideen Haji Vs the Secretary

P.Kunjumuhammed Vs Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.