Ravi Vs Ganapathi Pillai (Died) 1. Periyanayaki

PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 17.02.2025 in IA No.477 of 2024 in OS No.68 of 2014, on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam.

¶17

1/5

¶18

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

¶19

CRP(MD). No.2330 of 2025

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gurumoorthy

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 17.02.2025 in IA No.477 of 2024 in OS No.68 of 2014, on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam.

¶23

Since no adverse orders are going to be passed against the respondents, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

¶24

3.The petitioner is the defendant in OS No.68/2014. The said suit was filed by the 1^st respondent/plaintiff for partition and the same was contested by the petitioner on the ground that a Will was executed by his mother Jegathambal. However, the thumb impression of the petitioner's mother was disputed by the 1^st respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, the first respondent/plaintiff filed IA No.477/2024 for comparison of the thumb impression with the admitted document of 'X' and the said petition was allowed. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this petition.

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

CRP(MD). No.2330 of 2025

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the thumb impression in X1 and X2 were not obtained during contemporary period, the same cannot be taken to compare. He would further submit that those documents are only photocopies and it cannot be compared. However, the learned counsel would submit that this Court may issue a direction to the Advocate Commissioner to obtain the admitted thumb impression of Jegathambal from the petitioner or from the respondent in order to enable the Advocate Commissioner to compare the same.

¶29

I have considered the said submissions and perused the materials available on record.

¶30

Considering the facts and circumstances and considering the fact that if the petitioner has admitted thumb impression of Jegathambal, which is registered as a contemporary document, the petitioner is permitted to produce the same before the Advocate Commissioner in order to enable the Commissioner to send the same for expert opinion to

¶31

3/5

¶32

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

¶33

CRP(MD). No.2330 of 2025

¶34

compare the same with the admitted/disputed thumb impression in the Will along with the undisputed document.

¶35