DEEPA Vs. LALY MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 2 and 3 in a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and injunction are the revision petitioners. This C. R. P. is filed against the order passed by the learned Sub Judge dismissing an application filed by the revision petitioners to send two documents containing the disputed signature and handwriting for expert opinion.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and for consequential injunction. According to respondents 1 and 2, they are the legal heirs of deceased Anil Kumar and they alone are entitled to succeed the estate of Anil Kumar. The case put forward by respondents 1 and 2 in the plaint is that late Sri. Anil Kumar married the first respondent in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act and in that wedlock the second respondent was born. The first defendant who is the 4th respondent in the C. R. P. is the mother of deceased Anil Kumar. It is alleged that the suit properties originally belonged to Anil Kumar who died on 17. 7. 1995 in a road accident and after the death of Anil Kumar, all his assets devolved upon respondents 1 and 2. It is alleged that the first revision petitioner put forward a claim to the estate of the deceased Anil Kumar on the ground that she is the widow of the deceased and the second respondent is the child born in that wedlock. It was contended that even if Anil Kumar and the first revision petitioner underwent any form of marriage that is void due to the subsistence of an earlier marriage between the first respondent and the deceased anil Kumar. The revision petitioners entered appearance and disputed the marriage between the deceased and first respondent. They filed I. A. No. 381 of 2000 for sending two documents which according to respondents 1 and 2 contain the signature and handwriting of deceased Anil Kumar for comparison by an expert. It is alleged that the signature and handwriting purporting to be that of the deceased contained in the notice given under the Special Marriage Act were forged. The prayer was objected to by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 stating that the certificate of marriage issued by the marriage Officer appointed under the Special Marriage Act shall be deemed to be conclusive proof and hence the documents cannot be sent for expert opinion. The learned Subordinate Judge after hearing both sides dismissed that application. That order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) CONSIDERING the importance of the matter, notice was issued to the Bar Association informing that any Advocate who is interested in helping the Court regarding the effect of the proviso may appear and argue the case when the case comes up for hearing. In response to the notice a large number of Advocates appeared and highlighted various aspects regarding the effect of the proviso.