V NARAYANA REDDIAR Vs. RUGMINI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is filed against the order in C.M.P. No. 35930 of 1998 in O. P. No. 12701 of 1998. Fourth respondent in the C.M.P. is the appellant. He is the fourth respondent in the Original Petition also. According to the appellant, he is a tenant of a building called 'Jaya Building', Main Road, Kollam. The tenancy was given by one Durairaja Reddiar by executing an agreement of lease dated 6.1.1994. This lease deed enabled him to make alterations in the building. Accordingly, he effected some alterations in the building. When it was found that alterations were effected, the appellant received, from the Kollam Municipality, an order directing him to demolish the structure, which according to the Municipality, is unauthorised.

(2.) Against the order of the Municipality, petitioner approached the Government. The Government issued an order dated 22.6.1998, which is produced as Ext. P5 in the Original Petition directing the appellant to submit an application through the Local Authority seeking regularization of the additional structure made by him. It is challenging the above order that the first respondent - Rugmini Ammal, W/o. Durairaja Reddiar, filed the Original Petition. The contention raised by the petitioner in the Original Petition is that there was no lease agreement and that the construction was unauthorised. Further, it was stated that the construction cannot be legalised on other grounds.

(3.) Appellant filed a counter affidavit. Along with the counter affidavit, she produced photo copy of agreement of lease, Ext. R4(a). Ext. R4(a) is dated 6.1.1994. Thereafter, the first respondent filed C.M.P. No. 35930 of 1998. The contention taken in the C.M.P. is that Ext. R4(a) is a forged document. It is further stated that the first respondent sought the opinion of Professor B. B. Kashyap, a renowned and accepted handwriting and finger print expert. The signatures in the lease agreement, Ext. R4(a) was compared with the admitted signatures of Durairaj Reddiar in Ext. P7. The expert gave his opinion, copy of which is produced as Ext. P18. According to Ext. P18, the signatures in Ext. R4(a) don't tally with the signatures in the admitted signatures. Hence, the handwriting expert has given an opinion that the five disputed signatures have not been written by the writer of the admitted signatures.