B SRINIVASAN Vs. PADMAVATHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are plaintiffs' writ petitions challenging the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting their request to direct the Court Commissioner to compare the disputed signature with the signature found in the register maintained by the Sub-Registrar which is said to have been obtained at the time of execution of the general power of attorney by the testator.

(2.) The plaintiff - petitioners have filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/6th share in the suit schedule property. The 2nd defendant has filed a detailed written statement, denying the allegations in the plaint. She specifically contends that, on 14.12.1966 Sri M. Srivinasa Shetty partitioned all the properties between himself, his wife and daughters under a registered partition deed dated 14.12.1966. The properties allotted to the share of Srinivasa Shetty came to be bequeathed by him in favour of the 1st defendant under a Will dated 8.4.1979. After the demise of M. Srinivasa Shetty on 10.9.1984, khata of the suit schedule property was changed to the name of the 1st defendant. Therefore, the defendants want the suit of the plaintiffs to be dismissed.

(3.) The plaintiffs are disputing the Will set up by the defendants. When the matter was posted for arguments, the plaintiffs wanted the signature on the registered partition deed to be compared with the disputed signature on the Will set up by the 2nd defendant. They filed I.A. 10 under Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC for referring the admitted signature with the disputed signature to a handwriting expert for comparison; and the said application was allowed.