High Court set aside the trial court order allowing an application for expert opinion to compare signatures on a forged sale deed, noting defendants denied the plaintiff ever executed the document, making expert analysis irrelevant.
Civil Revision Petition allowed; order dated 12.09.2012 in I.A.No.322 of 2012 set aside; I.A. dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.02.2019 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.44 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013
Chithirai Muthu : Petitioner/1st Respondent/Plaintiff
.. Vs ..
1.Muthammal 2.Malayayee : Respondents/Petitioners/Defendants 1 & 2 3.Tamil Nadu Government rep. by its District Collector (In-charge), Collectorate, Theni District. 4.The District Registrar, South Agraharam, Periyakulam Town, Periyakulam. 5.The Sub Registrar, No.2, South Katcheri Road, Thenkarai, Periyakulam Town, Periyakulam. : Respondents/Respondents 2 to 4/ Defendants 3 to 5
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records relating to the order dated 12.09.2012 made in I.A.No.322 of 2012 in O.S.No.76 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam and set aside the same and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rajkumar For Respondent 2 : Ms.K.Abiya 1st Respondent – Died For Respondents 4 – 5: No appearance For R3 : Mr.M.Karuppasamy, Govt.Advocate - - - - -
2
ORDER
The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.76 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif, Periyakulam, is the revision petitioner in the present Civil Revision Petition. The name of plaintiff is Chithirai Muthu.
2.The suit was filed by the revision petitioner for declaration that he is the owner of the suit property and that the sale deed alleged to have been executed by one Chithirai Muthu in favour of Mookaiah Ambalam, the husband of the first defendant and the father of the second defendant, dated 09.04.1974 was by impersonation and for cancellation of the sale deed namely Document No.652/74 registered in Periyakulam Joint Sub Registrar No.II. It is the specific case of the revision petitioner in the plaint that he never executed any document whereas the husband of the first defendant and father of the second respondent namely Mookaiah Ambalam had obtained a forged sale deed impersonating the plaintiff and that the said sale deed is void.
3.The suit was contested by the defendants and one of the main case pleaded in the written statement is as follows:
““4.Mdhy;, me;j R.rpj;jpuKj;J bghpaFsk; jhYfh, Bky;kA;fyk; fpuhkk;, Bkyj;bjUtpy; trpj;J tUifapy; fle;j 09.04.1974k; ehs;, ne;jeph; 1k; gpujpthjpapd; fztUk;, ne;jeph; 2k; gpujpthjpapd; je;ija [k ;, bts;isr;rhkp mk;gyk; FkhuUkhd Kf;ifah mk;gyk; mth;fSf;F me;j brhj;ij fpiuak; bra;J bfhLj;J mjw;fhd gpujpgpuBah$dj;ij bgw;Wf;bfhz;L, brhj;jpd; RthjPdj;ij Kf;ifah mk;gyj;jplk; xg;gilj;Jtpl;lhh;. mjw;f;fhd fpiuag;gj;jpuKk; bghpaFsk; cjtpg; gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpy; 1974k; tUl 652 eph; Mtzkhf gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ.”
4.It would also disclose that the defence taken by the defendants is regarding the identity of the plaintiff as the son of M.Ramasamy Servai who is the resident in the west street of Melmangalam Village. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the written statement read as follows:
““6.ne;jeph; thjp, me;j brhj;ij Kf;ifah mk;gyk; mth;fSf;F 09.04.1974k; ehs; fpiuak; bra;J bfhLj;J bghpaFsk; cjtpg;gjpthsh; mYtyf 1974k; tUl 652eph; Mtzj;ij vGjpf;bfhLj;j Bky;kA;fyk; fpuhkk;, Bkyj;bjUtpy; trpj;J te;jtUk; M.uhkrhkp Brh;it FkhuUkhd me;j R.rpj;jpuKj;J jhdh vd;gJk; ne;jeph; 1, 2 gpujpthjpfspUtUf;Fk; bjhpahJ. mjid ne;jeph; 1, 2 gpujpthjpfspUtUk; xg;g [ f ;bfhs;stpy;iy vd;gJld; btspg;gilahft [Bk kWf;fpd;wdh; .”
7.ne;jeph; thjp, jw;BghJ tj;jyf;Fz;ow;F FoBawp tpl;ljhf nt;tHf;fpd; gpuhjpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s BghjpYk;, mth; vg;BghJ tj;jyf;Fz;ow;F FoBawpdhh; vd;gija [k ;, mjw;F Kd;g [, vA;F FoapUe;jhbud;gija[k ;, bjspthf Fwpg;gplhky; kiwj;jpUg;gjpypUe;Bj, mjd; cz;ikr;R{l;Rkk;, ne;jeph; thjp, Bky;kA;fyk; fpuhkk;, Bkyj;bjUtpy; trpj;J te;j M.uhkrhkp Brh;it Fkhuh;, R.rpj;jpuKj;J my;y vd;gij g[yg;gLj;JtjhFk; .”
5.In the entire written statement nowhere it is stated that the plaintiff executed the document, namely, the sale deed dated 09.04.1974. However, it was repeatedly stated that the sale deed dated 09.04.1974 was obtained from the true owner and that it was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not created by forgery or by impersonation. During the pendency of the suit, earlier the revision petitioner filed an application for sending the disputed sale deed to compare the finger print found in
3
the Registrar Office in the sale deed dated 09.04.1974 with that of the admitted finger print of the plaintiff himself available in the Registrar's office. The said application was contested by the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff has not proved that he is the son of Ramasamy Servai who is the original owner of the property from whom the husband of the first defendant purchased the property. In view of the fact that the defendants in the suit do not admit that the sale deed dated 09.04.1974 had been executed by the plaintiff, the trial Court dismissed the application holding that there is no purpose in sending the document for expert opinion. This is evident from the findings of the trial Court earlier in the application filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.3 of 2010 in O.S.No.76 of 2008 which read as follows:
““kDtpy; kDjhuuhy; kDjhh; Bghd;W Ms;khwhl;lk; bra;J Bghh;$hpahf 09.04.1974k; Bjjpapy; 1k; gpujpthjpapd; fztUk; 2k; gpujpthjpapd; jfg;gdhUkhd Kf;ifah mk;gyk; bgw;w fpiua Mtz vz;.652/1974y; fz;Ls;s ifbaGj;Jf;fs; kw;Wk; mjpy; cs;s ifBuiffs; Mfpaitfisa[k ; kDjhh;/thjpahy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;s MtzA;fspy; cs;s ifbaGj;Jk; kw;Wk; ifBuiffisa[k ; myfhghj;jpYs;s ifBuif epg[zh; jpU.vk;.kjd;Bkhfd; jhf;fh; mth;fSf;F mDg;gp mwpf;if bgwBtz;Lbkd;w kDtpy; Twg;gl;Ls;sJ. njw;F vjph; kDjhh;/gpujpthjp jug;gpy; i& kDjhuh; Fwpg;gpLfpd;w fpiua Mtzk; kDjhuh; vGjpf;bfhLj;jjhf gpuhjhd tHf;fpy; vjph;thjk; bra;atpy;iy vd;Wk; cz;ikapy; rp.Kj;Jrhkp Brh;it kfd; uhkrhkp Brh;it vd;gthpd; kfdhd bghpaFsk; jhYfh Bky;kA;fyk; fpuhkk; Bkyj;bjUtpy; trpj;J te;j Mh;.rpj;jpiuKj;J vd;gtBu ne;j eph; 1k; vjph;kDjhuhpd; fztUk; ne;j eph; 2k; vjph;kDjhuhpd; je;ija [k ; bts;isr;rhkp mk;gyk; FkhuUkhd Kf;ifah mk;gyk; vd;gtUf;F fpiuak; bra;J bfhLj;jhh; vd;W jhd; gpuhjhd tHf;fpy; vjph;thjk; bra;J tUtjhft[k ; i& uhkrhkp Brh;itapd; kfdhd Mh;.rpj;jpiuKj;J ne;j eph; kDjhuBu my;y vd;gJjhd; gpuhjhd tHf;F vd;Wk; Bkw;go uhkrhkp Brh;itapd; kfdhd Mh;.rpj;jpiuKj;Jjhd; ne;j tHf;fpd; thjpahd Mh;.rpj;jpiuKj;J epUgpf;fg;glhjtiu xg;gPL bra;tjw;F ifBuif epg[zUf;F mDg;gp itf;f nayhJ vd;W vjph;ciuapy; Twg;gl;Ls;sJ. Bfl;fg;gl;lJ MtzA;fs; ghprPypf;fg;gl;lJ. gpujhd tHf;fpy; ne;j vjph;kDjhuuhd 1, 2 egh;fspy; 1k; vjph;kDjhupd; fztUk; 2k; vjph;kDjhhpd; jfg;gdhUkhd Kf;ifah mk;gyk; thjpia Bghd;W xU egiu Ms;khwhl;lk; bra;J fpiua Mtzk; Vw;gLj;jpf;bfhz;ljw;fhfj;jhd; tHf;F jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. Mdhy; gpujhd tHf;fpy; ne;j 1, 2 vjph;kDjhuh;fs; i& Kf;ifah mk;gyj;jpw;F fpiuak; bra;j Mh;.rpj;jpiu Kj;J vd;gth; ne;j tHf;fpy; thjpBafpilahJ vd;Wk; i& fpiuak; bra;J bfhLj;j Mh;.rpj;jpiuKj;J jhd; ne;j tHf;fpy; thjp vd;W thjp cWjp bra;ag;glBtz;Lbkd;W vjph;ciuapy; Fwpg;gpl;Lshsh;fs;. Mf gpujhd tHf;fpy; nt;thW nUf;Fk;bghGJ ne;epiyapy; i& MtzA;fis ifBuif epg[zUf;F mDg;gp itf;f nayhJ vd;W ne;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpwJ.”
6.Strangely, after the evidence was closed and the matter was posted for arguments, the defendants filed an application in I.A.No.322 of 2012 in O.S.No.76 of 2008 for comparing the signature and thumb impression found in the document dated 09.04.1974 with another document namely the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in 1979 by sending the records of the Registrar's Office for expert opinion. In the application filed by the plaintiff, it is stated that such comparison is required for the fair adjudication of the suit. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the defendants have stated as follows:
““3.ne;jeph; gpuhJ brhj;ij, nt;tHf;fpd; thjp jug;g [ rhd;whtzk; 1 kw;Wk; gpujpthjpfs; jug;g [ rhd;whtzk; 1 Md 25.12.1940k; Bjjpa bghpaFsk; rhh;gjpthsh; mYtyf 1941k; tUl 10eph; fpiuag; gj;jpuk; Kyk; fpiuak; bgw;w M.uhkrhkp Brh;it (S/o.rp.Kj;Jr;rhkp Brh;it) vd;gthpd; kfdhd rpj;jpuKj;J vd;gth; nt;tHf;fpd; thjpay;y vd;gJk; vA;fs; jug;g [ vjph;thjkhFk;.”
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7.However, on the basis of the alternative submission the defendants have stated that such comparison is required for proper
4
adjudication of the dispute. The trial Court also allowed the application without considering the specific stand taken by the defendants in the written statement and the dismissal of previous application filed by the plaintiff himself for such claim. Referring to irrelevant facts and recording a finding that the admitted document has already been filed by the plaintiff as one executed by him, the application filed by the defendants was allowed. This Court having regard to the circumstances find that the stand taken by the defendants in the written statement is specific in the sense that the document of sale deed dated 09.04.1974 was not obtained from the plaintiff. In the whole of the written statement they did not state that the plaintiff had executed the sale deed. Having regard to the stand that the plaintiff has not executed the disputed sale deed the issue is not whether the signature found in the disputed document is that of the plaintiff. In such circumstances, absolutely, there is no scope for entertaining the application for getting expert opinion as to whether the disputed document contains the signature of the plaintiff or not. In that view of the matter this Civil Revision Petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly, allowed. The order of the learned District Munsif, Periyakulam, in I.A.No.322 of 2012 is set aside. The I.A.No.322 of 2012 stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Assistant Registrar (CS I) // True Copy //
SRM
To The District Munsif, Periyakulam.
Copy To:
The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. (2 copies )
1 CC to M/s.K.ABIYA, Advocate ( SR-47325[F] dated 15/02/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.T.ANTONY ARUL RAJ, Advocate ( SR-47229[F] dated 14/02/2019 ) C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.44 of 2013 14.02.2019
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ DS/ /SAR- (03.04.2019) 4P 6C
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in allowing an application for expert opinion to compare signatures on a sale deed when the defendants denied the plaintiff executed it.
Whether the revision petitioner is the true owner of the suit property against a claim of forgery and impersonation.
Whether the stand taken by defendants in the written statement negates the necessity of a handwriting comparison application.
Chithirai Muthu
Muthammal
Malayayee
Tamil Nadu Government rep. by its District Collector
District Registrar, South Agraharam
Sub Registrar, No.2, South Katcheri Road
S.S.SUNDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
