VIMALA ABRAHAM Vs. EAPPEN JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These original petitions arise from O.P.(LA) No.65/2007 of the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara and O.S.No.143/2007 of Sub Court, Mavelikkara, respectively. Parties are same in both the proceedings.

(2.) Petitioners in O.P.(C) No.2504/2013 are the respondents in O.P.(LA) No.65/2007. Petitioner in O.(P) No.2983/2017 is the plaintiff in O.S.No.143/2007 and the respondents in that original petition are the defendants in the suit. Parties will hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendants in accordance with their status in OS No.143/2007.

(3.) The facts of the case, as is discernible from the file, is that the plaintiff is the brother of the defendants in O.S.No.153/2007. The suit was one for specific performance of an oral agreement and for partition of the properties . Property covered by the agreement was stated to be the subject matter of a Will executed by the mother which was relied on by the plaintiff. Defendants raised objections regarding the due execution of the Will and also contended that it was not probated to establish its genuineness. Hence, the plaintiff filed O.P.(LA) No.65/2007 for issuing letters of administration to him in relation to the above Will. It was claimed that the original Will executed by the mother was handed over to the first defendant in the suit. She had sent a copy to the plaintiff, who was brother of the defendants. He produced the above copy. It was contended that on the strength of the Will, the defendants had mutated the property by submitting Ext.X1 application. A copy of Ext.X1 application was put to the witness at the time cross examination by the plaintiff. Execution of Ext.X1 was denied by the first defendant. Hence, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.176/2013 for forwarding Ext.X1 with specimen admitted signatures of the first defendant for establishing that the application was infact submitted by her. The court below by the impugned order allowed the application and directed Ext.X1 application to be sent to the FSL for expert opinion on the signature. The first defendant was directed to give her specimen signature. This order is under challenge at the instance of the defendants, in O.P.(C) No.2504/2013..