T.Savithri v. Srinivasan
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal against dismissal of application to admit additional documents regarding disputed thumb impression on a release deed. High Court found no interference called for given forensic report and delay.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.09.2017
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Original Side Appeal No.227 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.15362 of 2017
T.Savithri ...Appellant
- vs.
- 1.Shirinivasan 2.Nandha Gopal 3.S.Srinivasan 4.Subbulakshmi 5.S.Ramamoorthy 6.S.Lakshman 7.S.Srivasan 8.Venkateshwari ...Respondents
Original Side Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent and Order 36 Rule 2 of the Original Side Rules, against the order and decreetal order dated 24.02.2017 made in Application No.17 of 2017 in C.S.No.657 of 2010 on the file of the Original Side of this Court.
Prayer in Appln.17/2017:This application has been filed to grant leave to the applicant to receive the documents mentioned in the judges summons as additional documents. The documents mentioned are:-
- 1.Degree certificate given by Angila Ruskin to S.Raghuragavendra 2.Certificate of Incorporation 3.ISO Certificate 9001 : 2008
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should allow additional documents to prove the appellant never visited the Sub-Registrar office.
Whether the forensic expert report conclusively settles the genuineness of the thumb impression on the release deed.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
T. Savithri
- respondent
Shirinivasan et al.
Coram
Rajiv Shakdher
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court