ANNAPOORNAKAR Vs. HEMALATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed the present writ petition against the order dated 28th March, 2015 on IA made in OS No. 26635 of 2007 rejecting the application filed under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The plaintiff filed suit for declaration contending that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit property and the sale agreement dated 26th May 2003 made in favour of the second defendant, power of attorney dated 08th March 2004 made in favour of defendant No. 1; and sale deed 07th December 2004 made in favour of the second defendant and the sale dated 18th October 2006 made in favour of defendants No. 3, 4 and 5 are invalid and the defendants have, in any manner no right, title or interest in the suit property; and for permanent injunction contending that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property morefully described in the schedule.

(3.) The Defendants filed written statement denying the entire plaint averments and contended that the very suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and injunction is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the suit. After completion of evidence on both sides, and when the matter was posted for arguments, at that stage, the plaintiff filed application under Order 26 Rule 10A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to send Exhibit D1-the alleged power of attorney to the handwriting expert for scientific investigation to compare the signature on pages 1 and 2 with that of page No. 3 and also compare the fonts of pages 1 and 2 of the said Exhibit D1 with that of page 3 and to give report. It was the specific contention taken in the plaint that Exhibit D1 was not executed by the plaintiff but have executed power of attorney only to avail loan but not to sell the suit schedule property, which is not produced by the defendant with mala fide intention in order to cheat the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 in collusion with defendant No. 2 has replaced pages 1 and 2 and the signature on page 1 and 2 of Exhibit D1 has been forged retaining page No. The signatures on pages 1 and 2 on said Exhibit D1 are denied. Therefore, it is sought to allow the application as prayed for.