Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC against specific performance suit dismissal. Bench held lower courts justified in relying on handwriting expert report noting interpolations and conflicting witness evidence, dismissing appeal. Disposition: dismissed.
Second Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree of courts below confirmed.
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.
SA.No.410 of 1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
SA.No.410 of 1998
[Appellants 2 to 11 brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole appellant vide as per the order of the Court dated 14.08.2003 made in C.M.P.No.3057 of 2003]
... Appellants
Vs.
Narayanasamy
... Respondent
1/10
SA.No.410 of 1998
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC, against the judgement and decree passed in A.S.No.54 of 1990 dated 30.06.1997 on the file of the II Additional District Judge Pondicherry confirming the judgement and decree in OS.No.250 of 1981 on the file of III Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry dated 20.07.1989.
For Appellants : Mr.Rajarajan
For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Rajaraman
JUDGEMENT
The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by the II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry in A.S.No.54 of 1990 in and by which the learned Judge has confirmed the judgment and decree of the III Additional District Munsif, Pondichery in OS.No.250 of 1981. The facts in brief are as follows and the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court.
III Additional District Munsif, Pondichery for specific performance of an agreement dated 14.04.1969. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has been living in the suit property since 1957, thereafter the defendant’s father Govindasamy Gounder had executed an agreement of sale dated 14.04.1969
2/10
SA.No.410 of 1998
agreeing to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. The total sale consideration
was fixed at a sum of Rs.4,000/- and on the date of agreement a sum of Rs.3,500/- was paid as an advance, and the balance sum of Rs.500/- was payable. The said Govindasamy Gounder kept postponing the sale despite several requests of the plaintiff and ultimately in the year 1973 Govindasamy had passed away. Thereafter, the plaintiff had approached the defendant with a request to execute the sale deed. In July 1980, the defendant had agreed but later reneged on the agreement thereby constraining the plaintiff to issue a legal notice dated 23.01.1981 to the defendant. Though the defendant had received the notice he had not care to send a reply, therefore, the suit.
that the agreement was a rank forgery. As an alternate argument the defendant had stated that even assuming that such an agreement had come into existence there is absolutely no explanation as to why the plaintiff had not filed the suit during the lifetime of the said Govindasamy Gounder. The defendant would further submit that he is not the only legal heir of the deceased Govindasamy Gounder and there were others.
3/10
SA.No.410 of 1998
of his land and when he had called upon him to vacate the premises the plaintiff has come forward with this suit. The plaintiff was in fact allowed to stay in the property by the defendant’s father on compassionate ground and therefore the leave has now been revoked by the defendant.
following issues:-
1. Whether the agreement dated 14.04.1969 is a
forged one as contended by the defendant?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of
specific performance as prayed?
3. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?
P.W.2 and Ex.A.1 to A.4 were marked. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and there were no documents marked on the side of the defendant. That apart, the Advocate Commissioner’s Report was taken on file along with the two negatives and 2 photographs.
4/10
SA.No.410 of 1998
to the conclusion that the delay in filing the suit was enormous and no steps had been taken during the lifetime of Govindasamy. That apart, a mere perusal of Ex.A.3 would show the interpolations and corrections thereon which has been done in the year 1981. The Trial Court also found contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 who were examined as the attestors of the document. The Report of the Advocate Commissioner containing the expert’s opinion clearly proved that the signature contained in Ex.A.3 when compared with the admitted signature clearly show that it was a ranked forgery. The learned Judge, therefore, dismissed the suit.
5/10
SA.No.410 of 1998
Ex.A.3, agreement and the signature in the admitted document has been made by two different persons. Therefore, the Appellate Court had also confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
before this Court.
1. Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in
dismissing the appeal on the basis of the handwriting
expert's opinion alone without examining him as a witness?
2. Whether the certificate issued by the handwriting
and signature expert is admissible in evidence in the absence of oral examination and rejecting Ex.A.3 agreement on the basis of a written opinion alone is justified?
6/10
SA.No.410 of 1998
interpolations with reference to the month of payment and several other corrections and interpolations. Therefore, the said document cannot be relied upon. In addition, the handwriting expert had filed a report wherein
7/10
SA.No.410 of 1998
she had stated that the signature in Ex.A.3 is not the signature of the defendant’s father in the admitted document.
07.02.2023
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No shr
8/10
SA.No.410 of 1998
To
9/10
SA.No.410 of 1998
P.T. ASHA, J,
shr
SA.No.410 of 1998
07.02.2023 (2/2)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in dismissing the appeal based solely on a handwriting expert's opinion without examining the expert?
Whether the certificate issued by a handwriting and signature expert is admissible in evidence without oral examination and rejecting the agreement on that basis?
Whether the sale agreement is a forged document and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Devarasu (died) and others
Narayanasamy
P.T. ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
