Dismissed¶39

Pitchai Murugan v. Sulochana

Madras HC11 Jun 2025CRP(MD)/1639/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition suit O.S.No.40 of 2016 (Sub Court, Aruppukkottai) by sisters against brothers; defendants' I.A.No.4 of 2024 seeking signature comparison and expert opinion on Ex.B.1/Ex.B.3/Ex.B.4 dismissed; C.R.P.(MD)No.1639 of 2025 under Article 227 dismissed by Justice M. Dhandapani (11.06.2025); duty of proof on plaintiffs; expert-opinion application held unnecessary; trial Court order upheld; expeditious disposal directed; earlier I.A.No.2 of 2019 set aside in C.R.P.(MD)No.155 of 2020.

What did the court decide?

None; Civil Revision Petition dismissed with no order as to costs and the connected miscellaneous petition closed; impugned order of the Sub Court, Aruppukkottai left intact, with a direction for expeditious disposal of O.S.No.40 of 2016. ¶39

Pitchai Murugan Vs Sulochana — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 24.01.2025 of the learned Sub Court, Aruppukkottai dismissing I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.40 of 2016 (signature comparison / expert opinion) ought to be quashed and set aside. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The filing of the application for expert opinion was unnecessary; the trial Court rightly appreciated the issue, and the order passed by the trial Court is justified.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

It is an admitted fact that it is the duty of the plaintiffs to establish their case before the trial Court.

¶37

Key takeaways

Since the suit is of the year 2016, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible in the manner known to law, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this Civil Revision Petition.obiter¶37
The Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed, with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.(MD)No.8543 of 2025) is closed.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) — Civil Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order dated 24.01.2025 of the Sub Court, Aruppukkottai in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.40 of 2016, whereby the defendants' application for comparison of signatures and expert opinion was dismissed. The respondents/plaintiffs (sisters) sued their brothers (petitioners) for partition of property originally owned by their mother Mookkammal, claiming half share and admitting the other half to the petitioners; the petitioners pleaded settlement deeds Ex.B.3 and Ex.B.4 in their favour, whose execution the plaintiffs denied, and sought expert comparison based on Ex.B.1 bearing the mother's signature. Held: establishing the plaintiffs' case is the duty of the plaintiffs; the application for expert opinion was unnecessary and the trial Court's appreciation and order were justified. The revision was dismissed with no order as to costs and the connected C.M.P.(MD)No.8543 of 2025 was closed; the trial Court was directed to dispose of the 2016 suit expeditiously, uninfluenced by any observation in this revision. Noted: an earlier application I.A.No.2 of 2019 by the same petitioners for examination of the first plaintiff had been set aside by this Court in C.R.P.(MD)No.155 of 2020.

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.1639 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI C.R.P.(MD)No.1639 of 2025

¶6

and

¶7

C.M.P.(MD)No.8543 of 2025

1.Pitchai Murugan

2.Saravanan

...Petitioners

Vs.

1.Sulochana

2.Bhuvaneswari

...Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

¶16

of India, praying to call for the records of the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.40 of 2016, on the file of the learned Sub Court, Aruppukkottai dated 24.01.2025 and set aside the same by allowing this Civil

¶17

Revision Petition.

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition has been filed seeking to quash the order passed in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.40 of 2016, on the file of the learned Sub Court,

¶21

1/6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

C.R.P.(MD)No.1639 of 2025

¶24

Aruppukkottai dated 24.01.2025 and set aside the same by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

¶25

2. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.40 of 2016. Admittedly, the respondents / plaintiffs filed a suit for partition against the petitioners / brothers. It is claimed that entire property was originally owned by their mother Mookkammal, in which the respondents / plaintiffs are claiming half of the share and admitted that half of the share belongs to the petitioners / defendants. However, it is claimed by the petitioners / defendants that much earlier the said property was settled by their mother in favour of the petitioners / defendants, by way of Ex.B.3 and B.4. However, the same was denied by the respondents / plaintiffs, for which the petitioners / defendants also filed Ex.B.1 which contains their mother's signature and thereby, they preferred I.A.No.4 of 2024, for signature comparison and for obtaining expert opinion. The said application was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶26

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondents admitted the Ex.B.1 document, whereas the second plaintiff denied the documents in Ex.B.3 and Ex.B.4, executed by their mother. Hence, the petitioners filed a petition for signature comparison. Unless the documents in

¶27

2/6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

C.R.P.(MD)No.1639 of 2025

¶30

dispute are sent for expert opinion, it is not possible to deny the alegations made by the respondents / plaintiffs. Accordingly, learned Counsel for the petitioners prays for appropriate orders.

¶31

4. Since no adverse orders are passed, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

¶32

5. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioners are brothers and the respondents are sisters. The suit schedule property was initially owned by Mookkammal, who is the mother of the petitioners and the respondents, in which the respondents claim half share and they also admitted that other half share belongs to the petitioners. Whereas the petitioners claim that the entire property belongs to them on the basis of Ex.B.3 and Ex.B.4. Whereas, the partition suit is on the basis of Ex.B.1, for which the petitioners want to prove the execution of settlement deeds marked as Ex.B.3 and Ex.B.4, by seeking expert opinion. Already the very same petitioners filed an I.A.No.2 of 2019, for examination of the first plaintiff and the said application was allowed, which came to be set aside by this Court in C.R.P. (MD)No.155 of 2020. Subsequently, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.4 of 2024, for comparison of signature.

¶33

3/6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

C.R.P.(MD)No.1639 of 2025

¶36

¶37

6. It is an admitted fact that it is the duty of the plaintiffs to establish the same before the trial Court. But the filing of the application by the respondents for expert opinion is unnecessary. The said issue was rightly appreciated by the trial Court. Accordingly, the order passed by the trial Court is justified. However, since the suit is of the year 2016, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible in the manner known to law, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this Civil Revision Petition.

¶38

7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There shall

¶39